SHRI.C.A.LATHEEF V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II

WP(C)/3149/2015

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Shri C.A. Latheef challenging the notices issued by the Tax Recovery Officer and other tax authorities regarding the sale of his properties to recover Income Tax arrears. The petitioner argued that the recovery proceedings against one set of properties should not proceed before others were addressed. The court, however, found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the recovery process was lawful and that the petitioner had not shown willingness to remit any amount during the pendency of the writ petition. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need to uphold the revenue's right to recover dues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699758 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P K R MENON; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH JOHN; JOJO ISAAC
• Keywords: Assessment years; Income tax recovery; Property sale; Writ petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WP(C).No. 3149 of 2015 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- SHRI.C.A.LATHEEF CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ST.ANTONY'S ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM BY ADVS.SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN SRI.JOJO ISAAC NEYYARAPALLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, ERNAKULAM 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III KERALA BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, KOCHI -2, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682018 4. SHNRI.K.M.NASSARUDDIN, N.L.PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS, PALLIKUNNEL VEETTIL, NETOOR P.O., KOCHI - 682 034 *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED : 5. THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 10/9/2015 IN IA 12044/2015. WP(C).No. 3149 of 2015 (P) *ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED : 6. THE TAHSILDAR (SPECIAL) LAND ACQUISITION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 3149 of 2015 (P) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 30.1.2007 P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 OF THE PETITIONER P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 OF THE PETITIONER P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 OF THE PETITIONER P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 31.12.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 OF THE PETITIONER P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.1.20155 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TOT HE PETITIONER P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.1.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER/PARTNERSHIP FIRM, I.E M/S.N.L. PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.1.2015 ISSUED TOT HE 4TH RESPONDENT/PARTNERSHIP FIRM ,I.E.M/S.N.L. PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER - CUTTING DATED 17.11.2011 P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.1.2015 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT P11:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED RELATING TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY COMPRISED IN RESURVEY NO. 328/6 IN AMBALLOOR VILLAGE TO THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN EXT P7. P12:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 10/9/2015 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL R5. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3149 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioner by filing this writ petition was capable of delaying the process of sale of property initiated by the respondent authorities for recovering the Income Tax dues. The petitioner challenged Ext.P6 notice dated 12.01.2015 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer to the petitioner informing him about the settlement of proclamation on 06.05.2014 and the proposal to sell the property by public auction by 1st week of February 2015. The petitioner was also served with another notice Ext.P7 dated 12.01.2015 in which three other items of properties were also mentioned. Ext.P6 had been issued for recovering Income Tax arrears for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09. The amount involved is 1,24,20,733/-. Ext.P7 had been issued for recovering ₹ Income Tax arrears for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The amount involved is 1,50,60,747/-. An interim order of stay had ₹ been granted by this Court which was extended up to 22.05.2016. 2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent ought to have proceeded against the properties covered by Ext.P7 before proceeding with the sale of property covered by Ext.P6. When such huge amounts are due to the Department, I do not think that this Court will be justified in stalling the proceedings W.P.(C) No.3149 of 2015 2 by interfering with the right of the Department to effect sale of the property. The recovery with reference to Ext.P6 is for certain assessment years and recovery proposed in terms of Ext.P7 was for certain other assessment years. Even otherwise, when sale proceedings are being taken by the Department, this Court will not be justified in interfering with such process, unless the assessee is ready and willing to remit any amount. Even during the pendency of the writ petition, no steps have been taken to remit any amount at all. 3. Going by the grounds raised in the writ petition, I don't find a single ground raising any illegality or irregularity to the notices issued. Exts.P6 and P7 apparently were only notices informing about the proclamation of the sale and the proposal to sell the property. This is a clear instance of abuse of process by which the proposal of revenue to recover the dues have been delayed without any legal jurisdiction. This writ petition lacks bonafides and is dismissed with a cost of 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to be paid to the Mediation ₹ Centre attached to this Court. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE. AV "