Wa/1468/2016 Of Shri.c.a.latheef v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

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.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. 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, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Writ Appeal No.1468 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27[th] day of July, 2016 Antony Dominic, J. JUDGMENT Appellant filed W.P.(C)No.3149/15 seeking to quash Ext.P6 and for a direction to the respondents to proceed against theproperties mentioned in Ext.P7 to realise the dues mentioned inExts.P6, P7 and P8. In the judgment under appeal, the learnedSingle Judge found that the writ petition is an abuse of process ofcourt and dismissed the same with costs. It is this judgment, whichis challenged before us. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant, Standing Counselappearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned GovernmentPleader 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 saleproclamation 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 thatthe appellant wanted was that the dues be realised first byproceeding against the property mentioned in Ext.P7 and that theproperty in Ext.P6 with the dwelling house of the appellant thereinbe proceeded against, only if the sale proceeds of Ext.P7 areinsufficient. Such a prayer, to our mind, is not a matter which is forthis court to grant, instead, if at all the appellant has such a request,it is upto him to move the Department and obtain the ordersthereon. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judgedoes not call for any interference. Though we endorse the finding in the judgment, we do notfind this is a fit case for imposition of cost as ordered by thelearned Single Judge. Therefore, the judgment to the extent thecost is imposed is deleted and the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jes Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE