Wp(C)/35402/2018 Of Rajiv Malayil v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 17TH KARTHIKA,1940 WP(C).No. 35402 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: RAJIV MALAYIL,AGED 57 YEARS27/428,RANGEELA,OPPO.ZEALOTS VILLA,GOVINDAPURAM PO,CALICUT,673016. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSMT. ARYA ANILSMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAMSRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-2,KOZHIKKODE- 673001.CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,KOZHIKKODE- 673001. 2THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE, 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN - 682 011. CENTRAL CIRCLE, 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner had his business searched under Section 132 of theIncome Tax Act. In that process, the Income Tax authorities seizedcertain documents from his residence. Later, the assessment wascompleted, and the demand turned out to be nil. So the petitionersubmitted the Exts.P7 and P8 representations to the secondrespondent, to get back the documents initially seized. Met with nopositive reply, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2.In response to the submissions made by the petitioner'scounsel, the Standing Counsel for the Department submits that thisCourt may dispose of the writ petition fixing a time frame for theauthorities to release the documents if there is no other statutoryimpediment for them to do so. 3.The writ petition is innocuous, so must be—at least thesuitor expects—the disposal. True. But in the name of adjudicationwhat I am doing is a ritual. A distressed citizen comes to the Court,complaining that an official—a public servant—has not beendischarging his duty. I may, perhaps, get influenced by the simple W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 fact that I have an easy way of adjudication—and quick disposal, atthat. So I order that so and so authority should consider thepetitioner's representation and dispose it of. That is why I called it 'aritual'. Easy disposal and a feather in my cap, for that seemingly givesme satisfaction as the number of cases the Court disposed of swells.But at what cost? 4. This ritual, regrettably, clogs the system and almost chokesthe judicial process of adjudication. Sadly, most of the writ petitionsare of this nature. The officials—more often than not—do not act evenon, as I put it, innocuous representations from the citizens. So thecitizens compel themselves to spend money and approach the Court,and the Court then reminds the officials of their duty. 5. I hope this tendency will stop. The whole administrativeapparatus, including this Court and every institution in theorganizational hierarchy of the Government, exists only for thesingular purpose: to serve the citizens. And I am afraid most of thetimes we fail in our job. Agreed, we cannot tar everyone with thesame brush. There are many diligent officials and a few not so W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 diligent; I hope it will make them think. 6.Here, the petitioner has first sent the Ext.P7 notice andthen the Ext.P8 reminder. At least after the petitioner's filing thiswrit petition, the official concerned could have acted with a sense ofurgency—if not of remorse—that he could have done this earlier. Butthat is not to be. Now the Court reminds that the official concernedmust consider the petitioner's representation. Thus nudged, theauthorities will look into the petitioner's grievance. I hope this ritualwill stop with our increased awareness that people expect us to serve. I dispose of the writ petition. The authorities will look into thepetitioner's grievance—at the earliest. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 21/04/2016.21/04/2016. I dispose of the writ petition. The authorities will look into thepetitioner's grievance—at the earliest. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE W.P.(C). No. 35402 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED 21/04/2016.21/04/2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE COMPANY FOR THE A.Y.2012-13.THE COMPANY FOR THE A.Y.2012-13. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2012-13.THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2012-13. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2013-14.THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2014-15.THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2014-15. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2015-16.THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y.2015-16. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 19/12/2016.19/12/2016. EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 06/02/2018.06/02/2018.