SHRI.C.A.LATHEEF V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WA/1468/2016

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri C.A. Latheef against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, which dismissed his writ petition seeking to quash a tax recovery order and to direct the tax authorities to first proceed against certain properties for tax dues. The appellant argued that the properties he specified should be sold first to satisfy the tax dues, rather than the property where his dwelling house is located. The court, however, found that the appellant's request was procedural and not a matter for judicial intervention, thus upholding the dismissal of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755523 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; SHOBA EAPEN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH JOHN
• Keywords: Abuse of Process of Court; Income Tax Liability; Sale proclamation; Realise dues

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY , THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938 WA.No. 1468 of 2016 IN WP(C).3149/2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3149/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26-05-2016 APPELLANT: SHRI.C.A.LATHEEF CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ST. ANTONYS HOUSE, ST.ANTONYS ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II, ERNAKULAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, KERA BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, KOCHI 2, C.R BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 4. K.M.NASSARUDDIN N.L PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS, PALLIKUNNEL VEETTIL, NETTOOR P.O, KOCHI - 682 034. *Addl.R5. THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. (Additional R5 is impleaded as per order dated 10.9.2015 in I.A.12044/15) *Addl.R6. THE TAHSILDAR (Special) LAND ACQUISITION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Writ Appeal No.1468 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. Appellant filed W.P.(C)No.3149/15 seeking to quash Ext.P6 and for a direction to the respondents to proceed against the properties mentioned in Ext.P7 to realise the dues mentioned in Exts.P6, P7 and P8. In the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge found that the writ petition is an abuse of process of court and dismissed the same with costs. It is this judgment, which is challenged before us. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant, Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.5. 3. Despite the lengthy submissions made, we find that the liability towards the income tax in pursuance of which the sale proclamation has been issued is not under challenge. In fact even W.A.No.1468/16 : 2 : the proclamation of sale itself is not under challenge and all that the appellant wanted was that the dues be realised first by proceeding against the property mentioned in Ext.P7 and that the property in Ext.P6 with the dwelling house of the appellant therein be proceeded against, only if the sale proceeds of Ext.P7 are insufficient. Such a prayer, to our mind, is not a matter which is for this court to grant, instead, if at all the appellant has such a request, it is upto him to move the Department and obtain the orders thereon. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Though we endorse the finding in the judgment, we do not find this is a fit case for imposition of cost as ordered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the judgment to the extent the cost is imposed is deleted and the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jes "