M/S. SOVEREIGN DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/50675/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd, which filed writ petitions against the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) challenging the attachment notices issued for non-payment of commercial taxes. The petitions were initially granted interim relief requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.1.00 Crore against an outstanding demand of Rs.4.50 Crores. However, the petitioner failed to comply with this condition, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. The court also addressed the issue of a misleading certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, which falsely indicated compliance with the court's interim orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726923 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: T K VEDAMURTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: NANDISH PATIL
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Commercial Taxes; Deposit; Interim order; Non compliance; Security; Writ petition
• Section: T.N.125/17-18; T.N.129/17-18

Judgement Text

" 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.50675 & 51412/2017 (T-RES) Between: M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd Having its registered office at No.16, 2nd Floor, S.D. Complex New BEL Road, Jaladarshini Road Bengaluru-560 054 Represented by its Director Prakesh Kumar Singh Son of Sathya Bratya Singh Aged about 39 years. …Petitioner (By Mr. Nandish Patil, for Mr. Vivek A.R. Advocate) And: The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 6.4 VAT Div 6, 3rd Floor, KIADB Building, Peenya, Bangalore-560058. … Respondent (By Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA) **** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the attachment notice bearing T.N.125/17-18 DCCT (A) 6.4 17-18 dated 3.5.2017 and Date of Order 03-01-2018 W.P.Nos.50675/2017 & 51412/2017 M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 6.4 2/7 T.N.129/17-18 No.DCCT (A) 6.4/17-18 dated 13.5.17 issued by the respondent at Annexure A and A1 respectively & etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:- O R D E R Mr. Nandish Patil, for Mr. Vivek A.R., Advocate for Petitioner Mr. T.K. Veda Murthy, AGA for Respondent 1. Mr. Nandish Patil appears in place of Mr. Vivek A.R., the earlier counsel who had appeared in the matter on the previous occasions and detailed interim orders were passed by this Court on 13/11/2017 and 14/12/2017 granting indulgence to the petitioner by directing the deposit of Rs.1.00 Crore against the outstanding demand of Rs.4.50 Crores raised by the Respondent - Commercial Taxes Department. 2. When the matter was listed before the Court, yesterday, on 02/01/2018 and compliance not having been made at the request of the earlier counsel, Mr. Vivek A.R. with reluctance, the matter was passed Date of Order 03-01-2018 W.P.Nos.50675/2017 & 51412/2017 M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 6.4 3/7 over and called today. In the first session of the Court, Mr. Vivek A.R. was not available and though the Court was inclined to dismiss the petitions for non- compliance of the directions of this Court, in the interest of justice, the matter was passed over, however, in the post lunch session, Mr. Nandish Patil appeared in the Court in place of Mr. Vivek A.R. and submitted before the Court that Mr. Vivek A.R. has returned the brief back to the client and therefore, he may be allowed to appear in place of the earlier counsel. 3. Mr. S. Ramakrishnan, Accountant representing the petitioner is also present in the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner now appearing in the matter has sought to place before the Court, a Certificate issued by the Respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Audit – 6, Bangalore, dated 02/01/2018 to the effect that the petitioner assessee against the outstanding demand of Rs.4.50 Date of Order 03-01-2018 W.P.Nos.50675/2017 & 51412/2017 M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 6.4 4/7 crores for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, has discharged the liability to the extent of Rs.1.00 crore in two instalments, namely, Rs.41,20,135/- paid on 04/07/2017 after the re-assessment order was passed and Rs.58,79,865/- in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 13/11/2017. The said Certificate is taken on record. 4. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent, Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, has also placed on record the instruction issued by the same Deputy Commissioner by a written Note dated 01/01/2018 giving the same figures and giving the bifurcated deposits made by the petitioner assessee before the interim order was passed by this Court on 13/11/2017 and after the said date, with a Note that the assessee has not mortgaged any immovable Assets in the name of the office of the Respondent as on 01/01/2018 as directed by this Date of Order 03-01-2018 W.P.Nos.50675/2017 & 51412/2017 M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 6.4 5/7 Court upon submission of earlier counsel agreeing to the same, as his submission that money lying in deposit in the Escrow Account was not considered sufficient to secure the interest of the Revenue to pay such admitted tax liability. The said document is also taken on record. 5. Prima facie, the Certificate issued by the said Deputy Commissioner on 02/01/2018 in favour of the present petitioner is not only misleading but seeks to project a view as if the petitioner assessee has complied with the interim orders of this Court whereas the sum of Rs.41,20,135/- deposited was much prior to the interim order passed by this Court on 13/11/2017 had nothing to do with the compliance of the interim order passed by this Court on 13/11/2017 and 14/12/2017, by which it was specifically directed that subject to the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the petitioner assessee should deposit a sum of Rs.1.00 Crore within 30 days in the Account of the Respondent Date of Order 03-01-2018 W.P.Nos.50675/2017 & 51412/2017 M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 6.4 6/7 – Commercial Taxes Department and furnish the security by way of deposit of Title Deeds of immovable property as submitted and agreed by Mr. Vivek A.R. 6. The petitioner not only appears to have not complied with the interim orders of this Court but also seeks to mislead this Court by producing these kinds of Certificates and this Court is little surprised at the manner in which the Respondent Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has also issued the said Certificate without having been called upon by this Court to issue any such Certificate during the pendency of the present writ petitions, seeking to apparently favour the petitioner assessee contrary to the specific and clear terms of the Court’s order. Such erring officials deserve to be proceeded against under the Disciplinary and Control Rules by the concerned Head of the Department. Date of Order 03-01-2018 W.P.Nos.50675/2017 & 51412/2017 M/s. Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 6.4 7/7 7. It is left free for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to take appropriate action against the said Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law. 8. However, in view of the admitted and apparent non-compliance of the directions of the interim orders passed by this Court, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in the matter and therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed for non-compliance of the conditions of the grant of interim order in favour of the petitioner assessee by way of indulgence rather than any legal right in favour of the petitioner assessee. No order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE BMV* "