9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under articles 226 and 227 for a writ of certiorari, Jurisdiction of the High Court, Liability of the petitioner to be assessed under the Income-tax Act, Invocation of High Court jurisdiction under article 226, Exemption from tax under section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, Procedure for redressal of grievances under the Income-tax law. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari directing the Income-tax Officer to forward the case file of a charitable trust and to quash a notice issued under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act. The court noted that a previous writ petition was dismissed as premature by two judges. The respondent insisted on filing a return despite objections raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction and taxability of income. The respondent argued that objections could not be decided without examining account books and trust deed terms. The respondent contended that the Income-tax Act provides a complete redressal mechanism for grievances, and invoking High Court jurisdiction under article 226 was premature. However, the court held that article 226 does not impose a constitutional limitation and can be used when there is a lack of jurisdiction or a violation of mandatory provisions of law. The court emphasized that relief should be granted in cases of unauthorized tax demands by the State. On the merits, the petitioner argued that its liability to be assessed depends on a question of law under section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The court analyzed the provisions of section 4(3)(i) and noted that application of income to charitable purposes is essential for claiming exemption. The petitioner ultimately agreed to submit the return and produce accounts but sought a direction for the respondent to decide on the exemption issue. The court found no grounds to bypass the normal procedure prescribed by the Income-tax Act and held that the respondent would decide on the exemption after examining all relevant material. The petition was dismissed with no costs, as the apprehension of the petitioner was deemed unfounded, and the normal procedure under the Income-tax Act was deemed sufficient for redressal. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the Income-tax Act for redressal of grievances and the limited circumstances under which High Court jurisdiction under article 226 should be invoked.
|
