Kozhikode Daya Hospitals Private Ltd.,V-302 And v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 24 DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 26166 OF 2021 PETITIONER: KOZHIKODE DAYA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LTD.,V-302 AND 303, SHORNUR ROAD, NEAR VIYYUR BRIDGE, THRISSUR-680 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,K.P. AHAMMED KOYA.BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001.2THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), TDS RANGE, C.R. BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 18.BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P6order imposing penalty. Primarily, it is the contention of the petitioner,that Ext.P6 was issued without considering the reply submitted by thepetitioner. It is also pointed out that Ext.P6 order should not have beenissued when the assessment order which gives rise to the order of penalty isunder appeal before the appellate authority. 2.The learned counsel for the Department points out that theorder imposing penalty was issued after giving opportunity to thepetitioner. It is submitted that, at any rate, the petitioner cannot challengeExt.P6 directly before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. 3.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, I amof the view that there is merit in the contention taken by the learned counselappearing for the Income Tax Department that the petitioner has no causeof action to challenge Ext.P6 order of penalty directly before this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India as no jurisdictional issue ispointed out. I am also not able to find in favour of the petitioner on anyissue relating to natural justice. Therefore, this writ petition will stand W.P.(C)No.26166/2021 disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the appellate authoritywith an appeal against Ext.P6 order of penalty. The period during whichthis writ petition was pending before this Court namely from 22.11.2021 tilltoday (24.6.2022) shall be excluded for the purpose of computing theperiod of limitation for filing the appeal, provided the appeal is filed alongwith a stay petition within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of acertified copy of this judgment. If the petitioner files an appeal along withthe stay petition as above, any coercive steps to enforce the demand arisingout of Ext.P6 order of penalty shall be kept in abeyance till a decision istaken on the stay petition to be filed by the petitioner. acd Sd/- GOPINATH P.JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26166/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. Exhibit P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3(a) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 COPY OF LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 COPY OF E-MAIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. Exhibit P6 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.