Wp(C)/4481/2013 Of M/S. Jubilee Mission Hospitals v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/26TH MAGHA 1934 WP(C).No. 4481 of 2013 (I) -------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- M/S. JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR-680 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FR.FRANCIS PALLIKUNNATH. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER SOUTH INDIAN BANK, EAST FORT, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, EAST FORT, THRISSUR-680 005. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn WP(C).No. 4481 of 2013 (I) PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.22-1-2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX (APPEALS) EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7/2/2013 NO.AAAAJ1080A/W1(1)/ R1/TCR/2009-10. R1/TCR/2009-10. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 13-2-2013 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 13-2-2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 13-2-2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) DATED 23-12-2011. DATED 23-12-2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).4481/2013 .............................................. Dated this the 15[th] day of February, 2013 JUDGMENT 1.Ext.P6 is an assessment order passed against the petitionerunder the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. Interms of the said assessment order, the total liability of thepetitioner is Rs.2,51,93,020/-. Against the assessment order,petitioner filed appeal which ended up in Ext.P1 order. By thisorder, the appeal has been partially allowed. Grievance of thepetitioner is that the appellate order has not been given effectto and revised demand has not been made and that in themeanwhile, 1[st] respondent has issued Ext.P2 to the 2[nd]respondent demanding payment of Rs.2,87,20,040/-. As aresult, by Ext.P2, Bank account of the petitioner has beenfrozen. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. Interms of the said assessment order, the total liability of thepetitioner is Rs.2,51,93,020/-. Against the assessment order,petitioner filed appeal which ended up in Ext.P1 order. By thisorder, the appeal has been partially allowed. Grievance of thepetitioner is that the appellate order has not been given effectto and revised demand has not been made and that in themeanwhile, 1[st] respondent has issued Ext.P2 to the 2[nd]respondent demanding payment of Rs.2,87,20,040/-. As aresult, by Ext.P2, Bank account of the petitioner has beenfrozen. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2.Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. W.P.(C).4481/13 2.Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. W.P.(C).4481/13 3.Standing Counsel states that the respondents are in the processof giving effect to Ext.P1 and according to him, even if Ext.P1 isgiven effect, that will only wipe off a part of the liability. of giving effect to Ext.P1 and according to him, even if Ext.P1 isgiven effect, that will only wipe off a part of the liability. 4.Now that by Ext.P1, the appeal filed by the petitioner againstExt.P6 has been disposed of, necessarily the said order has tobe given effect. It is at that stage, Ext.P2 communication hasbeen issued to the respondent Bank which, in my view, ispremature. Ext.P6 has been disposed of, necessarily the said order has tobe given effect. It is at that stage, Ext.P2 communication hasbeen issued to the respondent Bank which, in my view, ispremature. 5.In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directingthat the 1[st] respondent shall give effect to Ext.P1 appellateorder. This the 1[st] respondent shall do as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. In the meanwhile, having regard to the fact thatExt.P6 has not been completely annulled by Ext.P1 order, Idirect that subject to the petitioner remitting Rs.50 Lakhs withinten days from today, recovery pursuant to Exts.P2 and P6 willstand stayed. that the 1[st] respondent shall give effect to Ext.P1 appellateorder. This the 1[st] respondent shall do as expeditiously aspossible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. In the meanwhile, having regard to the fact thatExt.P6 has not been completely annulled by Ext.P1 order, Idirect that subject to the petitioner remitting Rs.50 Lakhs withinten days from today, recovery pursuant to Exts.P2 and P6 willstand stayed. W.P.(C).4481/13 6. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with acopy of the writ petition before the 1[st] respondent forcompliance.copy of the writ petition before the 1[st] respondent forcompliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge