Wa/6764/2017 Of Mphasis Corporation v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUON THE 11 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND| THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN| WRIT APPEAL No.6/64 OF 2O1/ BETWEEN MPHASIS CORPORATION,REP BY ITS AUTHORISED ©REPRESENTATIVE, SRI K.R.GIRISH,SON OF SRIL.RATNA KRISHNA KALPATHI,AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,460, PARK AVENUE SOUTH,SUITE 1101, NEW YORK,NY LOQQ6 USA. (BY SRI A SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FORSRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE. ) AND 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF | INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 O95.KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 O95. — APPELLAN [ 2.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 O95.INCOME-TAX,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 O95. ‘3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX,INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE,ROOM NO.441, 4 FLOOR, |BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 O95.CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE,ROOM NO.441, 4 FLOOR, |BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 O95. — RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE.ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT|PETITION45/09|OF|2O1L/DATED21/11/2017.AND|CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN THE|WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, RAVIMALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Aggrieved py tne order passed by tne learned SingleJudge in Writ Petition No.45709 of 2017 dated 21.11.201/,|dismissing the writ petition on tne ground that it is'premature, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. The primary contention of Sri A.Snankar, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the appellant’s learned Counsel|is tnat there were almost eleven grounds urged _ foconsideration before the learned Single Judge. Rather than|considering the contentions raised by the writ petitioner, tne|learned Single Judge nas merely neid tnat the writ petition is.premature and nas dismissed the writ petition. It is nis plea|that certain important issues were raised for consideration|which required to be considered. That they go to the root of the matter. Whether the contentions required to be accepted|Or not is secondary, but they do deserve merit by the learnedSingle Judge. 3. Tne same is disputed by the learned Counsel for tnerespondents. He submits that in view of holding that the|petition is premature, it is not necessary to consider any of|tne issues invoived. Therefore, it is merely a tecnnical groundtnat all those contentions are required to be considered. 4. On hearing the learned Counsels, we are of the viewtnat appropriate interference is called for. 5. Tne writ petition was filed on various grounds. Oneof the grounds on which the writ petition was dismissed is tnat interference in the instant proceedings wnichn prima facieappear to have been validly initiated, is not necessary.|Tnerefore, Keeping it open for the petitioner-assessee to press the objections before the Assessing Authority and the|Appellate Authorities under the Act to decide the objections|and adjudicate on the same, the petition was dismissed as|premature. 6. We are of the considered view that the contentions oftne writ petitioner are required to be considered on merits,|especially when the jurisdiction of the authority itself is|questioned. Jurisdiction is an important issue. Therefore, we|are of the view that the matter requires to be re-considered|on merits. 7. Under these circumstances, the writ appeal isallowed. Tne order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned|Single Judge in Writ Petition No.45/709 of 2017 is set aside.Tne writ petition requires be heard afresh on merits including the objection of the respondents tnat the writ petition is not|maintainable. 6. We are of the considered view that the contentions oftne writ petitioner are required to be considered on merits,|especially when the jurisdiction of the authority itself is|questioned. Jurisdiction is an important issue. Therefore, we|are of the view that the matter requires to be re-considered|on merits. 7. Under these circumstances, the writ appeal isallowed. Tne order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned|Single Judge in Writ Petition No.45/709 of 2017 is set aside.Tne writ petition requires be heard afresh on merits including the objection of the respondents tnat the writ petition is not|maintainable. 8. Tne respondents are at liberty to file their statementof objections before the learned Single Judge. In view of the|pendency of the appeal before tne Assessing Authority, tne|learned Single Judge is requested to dispose off the petition|as expeditiously as possibile. Till the disposal of the writpetition, the interim order granted py this Court snall|continue. All contentions are kept open. KK|CT-HR| Sd/-|JUDGE| Sd/-|JUDGE|