Wp(C)/3149/2015 Of Shri.c.a.latheef v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-Ii

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WP(C).No. 3149 of 2015 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- SHRI.C.A.LATHEEF CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ST.ANTONY'S ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM BY ADVS.SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN SRI.JOJO ISAAC NEYYARAPALLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, ERNAKULAM 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III KERALA BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, KOCHI -2, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682018I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682018 4. SHNRI.K.M.NASSARUDDIN, N.L.PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS, PALLIKUNNEL VEETTIL, NETOOR P.O., KOCHI - 682 034 *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED : 5. THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 10/9/2015 IN IA 12044/2015. WP(C).No. 3149 of 2015 (P) *ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED: 6. THE TAHSILDAR (SPECIAL) LAND ACQUISITION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 30.1.2007P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 OF THE PETITIONER-----------------------P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 30.1.2007P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 OF THE PETITIONERP3:- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 OF THE PETITIONERAPPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 OF THE PETITIONERP4:- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 OF THE PETITIONER31.12.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 OF THE PETITIONER P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 31.12.2009 FOR THEASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 OF THE PETITIONERASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 OF THE PETITIONER P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.1.20155 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TOT HE PETITIONERTHE 3RD RESPONDENT TOT HE PETITIONER P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.1.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER/PARTNERSHIP FIRM, I.E M/S.N.L. PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERSTHE PETITIONER/PARTNERSHIP FIRM, I.E M/S.N.L. PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.1.2015 ISSUED TOT HE 4TH RESPONDENT/PARTNERSHIP FIRM ,I.E.M/S.N.L. PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERSHE 4TH RESPONDENT/PARTNERSHIP FIRM ,I.E.M/S.N.L. PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER - CUTTING DATED 17.11.2011P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.1.2015 FILED BY THE4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENTP10:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.1.2015 FILED BY THE4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT P11:-COPY OF THE SALE DEED RELATING TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY COMPRISED IN RESURVEY NO. 328/6 IN AMBALLOOR VILLAGE TO THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN EXT P7.PROPERTY COMPRISED IN RESURVEY NO. 328/6 IN AMBALLOOR VILLAGE TO THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN EXT P7. P12:-COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 10/9/2015 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL R5.ADDITIONAL R5. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// bp P.A. TO JUDGE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3149 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26[th] day of May, 2016 J U D G M E N T P11:-COPY OF THE SALE DEED RELATING TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY COMPRISED IN RESURVEY NO. 328/6 IN AMBALLOOR VILLAGE TO THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN EXT P7.PROPERTY COMPRISED IN RESURVEY NO. 328/6 IN AMBALLOOR VILLAGE TO THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED IN EXT P7. P12:-COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 10/9/2015 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL R5.ADDITIONAL R5. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// bp P.A. TO JUDGE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3149 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26[th] day of May, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioner by filing this writ petition was capable ofdelaying the process of sale of property initiated by the respondentauthorities for recovering the Income Tax dues. The petitionerchallenged Ext.P6 notice dated 12.01.2015 issued by the TaxRecovery Officer to the petitioner informing him about thesettlement of proclamation on 06.05.2014 and the proposal to sellthe property by public auction by 1[st] week of February 2015. Thepetitioner was also served with another notice Ext.P7 dated12.01.2015 in which three other items of properties were alsomentioned. Ext.P6 had been issued for recovering Income Taxarrears for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09. The amountinvolved is 1,24,20,733/-. Ext.P7 had been issued for recovering₹Income Tax arrears for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Theamount involved is 1,50,60,747/-. An interim order of stay had₹been granted by this Court which was extended up to 22.05.2016. 2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the 3[rd]respondent ought to have proceeded against the properties coveredby Ext.P7 before proceeding with the sale of property covered byExt.P6. When such huge amounts are due to the Department, I donot think that this Court will be justified in stalling the proceedings by interfering with the right of the Department to effect sale of theproperty. The recovery with reference to Ext.P6 is for certainassessment years and recovery proposed in terms of Ext.P7 was forcertain other assessment years. Even otherwise, when saleproceedings are being taken by the Department, this Court will notbe justified in interfering with such process, unless the assessee isready and willing to remit any amount. Even during the pendencyof the writ petition, no steps have been taken to remit any amountat all. 3. Going by the grounds raised in the writ petition, I don't finda single ground raising any illegality or irregularity to the noticesissued. Exts.P6 and P7 apparently were only notices informingabout the proclamation of the sale and the proposal to sell theproperty. This is a clear instance of abuse of process by which theproposal of revenue to recover the dues have been delayed withoutany legal jurisdiction. This writ petition lacks bonafides and is dismissed with a costof 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to be paid to the Mediation₹Centre attached to this Court. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE. AV