Wp(C)/37323/2016 Of Jidish v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 37323 of 2016 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- JIDISH C.M., CHITRAMPULLY HOUSE, MANAKKAL PADI, AVITTATHUR P.O., THRISUR- 680 683 BY ADV. SRI.SUSHANTH.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN- 682 018 COCHIN- 682 018 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR- 680 001 THRISSUR- 680 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS--------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 8-11-2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11-11-2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/P.A.TO JUDGE A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 37323 of 2016 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22[nd] day of November, 2016 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 by which recovery soughtagainst the petitioner for an amount of Rs.3,52,030.14. InExt.P1, it is stated that the Government of United Kingdom onaccount of Multilateral Convention has requested Governmentof India Administrative Assistance to collect tax due from thepetitioner to the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the TaxRecovery Officer had issued a notice to the petitioner to paythe said amount, failing which, the petitioner was informedthat coercive steps will be taken in the matter. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner had no such obligation and there was no suchdemand from the United Kingdom as well. 3.But perusal of Ext.P1 would show that a demand had been made by the Government of United Kingdom andbased on the Multilateral Convention, the Government of India is bound to recover the said amount. Government of India is only a recovery agency. Since the petitioner challenges thedemand made by the Government of United Kingdom, hisremedy is to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.The recovery agency cannot sit in judgment over the liabilityas matter stands now. Under such circumstances, I do not think that this Courtwill be justified in interfering with Ext.P1. Writ petition istherefore dismissed. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE