Wp(C)/9411/2012 Of M.meenakshy v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/16TH JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 9411 of 2012 (B) -------------------------- PETITIONER:----------- 1. MISS.M.MEENAKSHY (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS. 2. MASTER M.KRISHNA KUMAR(MINOR) AGED 14 YEARS (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN MRS.USHA MURUGAN W/O.LATE T.MURUGAN FOR PETITIONERS 1 & 2) MEENAKSHY BHAVAN, PUTHIYA THRIKKOVIL, THIRUNAKKARA KOTTAYAM 686001 BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR RESPONDENT(S):-------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS, SHASTRY ROAD,KOTTAYAM 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS SHASTHRY ROAD, KOTTAYAM 3. INDUSIND BANK LTD, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K.ROAD, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 002 4. AXIS BANK NO.LX-311, A2 CENTURY TOWERS, NEAR Y.W.C.A KOTTAYAM 686 001 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV KERA BHAVAN, SRVHS ROAD, COCHIN 682 011 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON06-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 9411 of 2012 (B) -------------------------- APPENDIX--------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS---------------------- RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P. © No. 9411 OF 2012 ......................................................................... Dated this the 6[th] June, 2012 J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court with thefollowing prayers: “1) to issue a writ of mandamus or anyother appropriate writ, order or direction,directing the 1[st] respondent to lift theattachment of the Savings Bank Accounts ofthe petitioners vide Account Nos.0186DW0430001 of 1[st] petitioner in the 3[rd]respondent Bank as well as the SavingsAccountNo.910010041277655of1[st]petitioner in 4[th] respondent Bank and SavingsBank Account No.910010041767860 of the2[nd] petitioner in the 4[th] respondent Bank,forthwith. ii) To declare that the Savings BankAccounts of the 1[st] petitioner in the 3[rd] and 4[th]respondent Banks and the Savings AccountNo.910010041277655 of 1[st] petitioner in 4[th]respondent Bank and Savings Bank Accountof the 2[nd] petitioner in the 4[th] respondentBank are not liable for attachment as per thejudgment Ext.P2;AND (iii) To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case “ 2. Mr. T.M. Sreedharan, the learned Sr. Counsel submits that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of therespondents in causing the bank account of the minors to beattached; more so in view of the clear mandate given by aDivision Bench of this Court vide Ext.P2 judgment. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department submits that the reliance sought to beplaced on Ext.P2 judgment is not correct or sustainable and theinterference made by the Division Bench was with reference tothe extent of demand i.e, 3,96,11,900/- in respect of theassessment year 2008-09. The submission made from the partof the learned Standing Counsel that various other demands arealso pending in respect of other assessment years and also inrespect of the connected firms, was also taken note of and it wasaccordingly, that the issue was left open with regard to the claimin respect of other firms, but for confining the relief only to theextent as stipulated therein. W.P. © No. 9411 OF 2012 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department submits that the reliance sought to beplaced on Ext.P2 judgment is not correct or sustainable and theinterference made by the Division Bench was with reference tothe extent of demand i.e, 3,96,11,900/- in respect of theassessment year 2008-09. The submission made from the partof the learned Standing Counsel that various other demands arealso pending in respect of other assessment years and also inrespect of the connected firms, was also taken note of and it wasaccordingly, that the issue was left open with regard to the claimin respect of other firms, but for confining the relief only to theextent as stipulated therein. W.P. © No. 9411 OF 2012 4. The respondents have filed a statement, wherein it hasbeen stated that the establishment 'Meenakshy Group' consistsof firms and proprietary concerns, which are mainly engaged inthe business of wholesale trading of lotteries and have diversifiedthe business to the fields of Textiles and Bakery as well. Inrespect of the concerned assessment year, quite a substantialamount is due and proceedings are being pursued by theconcerned authorities . It is also stated that the notice undersection 226(3) was issued referring to due amount ofRs.3,96,11,904/-. But subsequently, it was observed that therewas an inadvertent mistake, under which circumstance agarnishee notice was issued to the firm 'Meenakshy Enterprises' 'in respect of the due amount of Rs. 18,79.05,386/- for theassessment year 2008-09. The mistake was corrected byissuing proper notice on 29.03.2012.The issue considered by theDivision Bench vide Ext. P2 and the amount satisfied by theconcerned petitioner to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs as ordered by theDivision Bench of this Court were in respect of the demandraised in the name of Sri T. Murugan, for the assessment year W.P. © No. 9411 OF 2012 2008-09 and it has no relevancy or significance with regard tothe present issue or the liability to be satisfied in respect of theother firms by the parties concerned. It is also stated that theaccount maintained by the petitioners with the respondents 3 and4 is not being operated by the minors and the nature oftransactions clearly reveal that it is part of the running businessby the concerned firm. The sum and substance of thecontentions of the petitioners is however that the Division Benchof this Court, in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 hasintercepted the coercive proceedings subject to satisfaction of asum of Rs.50 lakhs, which is stated as complied with and nofurther proceedings are liable to be pursued against thepetitioners, particularly by causing the Savings Bank account ofthe petitioners attached . 5. On going through the materials on record, it is seen thatthe account of the petitioners was attached much earlier, inFebruary, 2012, which led to the intimation served by the Banksto the petitioners vide Exts. P3 and P4 on 08.02.2012. As amatter of fact, the issue was finalised by the Division Bench of W.P. © No. 9411 OF 2012 this Court by passing Ext.P2 judgment only on 16.03.2012 . Atthe time of finalisation of the said proceedings, the petitionersdid not have any case with reference to Exts.P3 and P4 and theissuance of the said proceedings were not brought to the noticeof the Division Bench, when the writ appeal was finalised videExt.P2 judgment. If at all any clarification was needed by thepetitioners, with reference to Exts.P3 and P4, it could have beenmade possible by way of other appropriate proceedings. Theattempt of the petitioners to club the above liability in respect ofdifferent firms, as explained by the respondents 1 and 2 in theirstatement, by filing the present writ petition is not liable to beentertained. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petition. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.