Wp(C)/9413/2014 Of Vavachan v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2014/7TH JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 9413 of 2014 (B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VAVACHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, THURUTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBALAMEDU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.V.T.RAGHUNATH SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALUVA RANGE, KAP COMPLEX, RS ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN-683801. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 9413 of 2014 (B) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:-COPY OF THE WILL NO.100/95 EXECUTED BY CHACKO DTD 29/11/85 P2:-COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DTD 25/10/72 P3:-COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DTD 22/3/2013PETITIONER DTD 22/3/2013 P4:-COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD 3/3/2014DTD 3/3/2014 P5:-COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD 3/3/2014DTD 3/3/2014 P6:-COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 18/3/2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 9413 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 28[th] May, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4assessment notice and Ext.P5 penalty notice andhe seeks quashing of the same. It is trite thatno notice can be quashed by this Court invokingextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. With respect to theassessment order, necessarily the petitionerwould have to avail of appellate remedies. Thepetitioner contends that an appeal was filed asevidenced by Ext.P6. However, the same has notbeen registered, is the argument. Petitionerdoes not have a case that he has filed a stayapplication along with the appeal. 2. In the circumstances of there being analternate remedy and the petitioner is stated tohave availed of such remedy, it may not be proper for this Court to entertain the abovewrit petition. The petitioner seems to beaggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiatedon the basis of the assessment order. The 1[st]respondent shall verify as to whether the periodof appeal is over and then only proceed againstthe petitioner if he has not instituted aproper appeal before the Appellate Authority. Writ petition disposed of. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs