Wp(C)/17321/2009 Of P.premkumar v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17321 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- P.PREMKUMAR, 'LAKSHMI' K.K.VISWANATHAN ROAD, KARUVELIPADY,COCHIN-5 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE, THARAKKANDAM CENTRE BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II, ERNAKULAM. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE I ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC – I.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 17321 OF 2009-----------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is against the arbitrary stand and callousinaction on the part of the respondents in lifting the attachment over theproperty belonging to the petitioner, despite the fact that the assessment orderhas already been set aside as per Ext.P1 order passed by the AppellateTribunal, pursuant to which the first respondent has passed Ext.P2 orderingrefund as well. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the amount duehas also already been disbursed to the petitioner. In view of the ordersobtained in favour of the petitioner, Ext.P3 request was made before the thirdrespondent for 'lifting the attachment' over the properties; to which the saidrespondent has turned his back vide Ext.P4 and P5 wherein vague and evasivestatement has been made pointing out that the issue is pending in appeal. 2.Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner approached theconcerned Ombudsman, who passed Ext.P6 order deprecating the stand takenby the departmental authorities, holding that the attachment is liable to be lifted.The petitioner preferred Ext.P7 representation before the assessing officer forlifting the attachment and since the steps taken in this regard have been turnedfutile, the petitioner is now before this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. WPC NO.17321/2009 3.When the matter came up for admission on 23.06.2009, thestanding Counsel was required to get specific instructions as to the particularsand stage of the appeal, which is stated as pending before this Court.Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 29.06.2009, on which day, further timewas sought for. Even today the position remains to be the same and therespondents are not in a position at least to furnish the number of the appealwhich is stated as pending before this Court. The course, attitude andapproach pursued by the department cannot but be deprecated. Since noappeal is stated as admitted, the reliance sought to be placed on Section 225(3) of the I.T. Act is wrong and misconceived. 4.In the above facts and circumstances, the third respondent ishereby directed to lift the attachment over the property in question by passingnecessary orders thereon within one week from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE