2021 (12) TMI 994 - HC - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s 12AA cancelled - assessee claims to be a public charitable trust having been so registered vide a Trust deed on the file of Sub-Registrar, Peravurani, Thanjavur District - submission of assessee that registration being given to the writ petitioner-assessee for over thirty years has been cancelled without giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner-assessee and passed non speaking order - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction and that the prayer of the writ petition in the captioned main writ petition cannot be answered in affirmative i.e., cannot be acceded to the cancellation of registration underSection 12AA of said Act is not vide the impugned order but it only records the cancellation; There is nothing to demonstrate why the writ petitioner did not upload the registration certificate under Section 12AA of said Act in spite of adequate ample and multiple opportunities being given to the writ petitioner, all of which is captured in the aforementioned two paragraphs - On a demurrer, even if it is to be construed that the cancellation is vide impugned order cancellation of registration under Section 12AA of said Act is also revisable under Section 264 of said Act. Suffice to say that there is an effective and efficacious alternate remedy even against cancellation. To be noted, as mentioned in the opening part of this point this is on a demurrer - The submission that the writ petitioner-assessee being given the benefit of registration under Section 12AA of said Act for thirty years continuously falls flat on its face in the light of aforementioned assessment order dated 30.04.2021 made for the assessment year 2018-19 Non speaking order - The impugned order, in the considered view of this Court cannot be said to be a non-speaking order. Two critical paragraphs in the impugned order which has captured the crux and gravamen of the matter had been extracted and reproduced supra. Those two paragraphs by itself and of course the rest of the order make it clear that it is not a non-speaking order. It may at best be a terse order. An order can be tersely eloquent, it cannot be construed to be a non-speaking order unless it is laconic, not when it is epigrammatic or merely because it is terse. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the argument that the impugned order is a non-speaking order becomes a non-starter i.e., an argument which does not take off. Alternate remedy - As the stated case of the writ petitioner that the assessment order qua 2018-19 has been assailed by the writ petitioner by way of a statutory appeal. The arguments that vide assessment order 2018-19 there is cancellation of 12AA registration certificate, does not hold water and does not carry the writ petitioner any further for two reasons. One reason is as already alluded to supra, the impugned order is not the order by which the cancellation has been made and on a demurrer even if that be so, the same is revisable under Section 264 of said Act and more importantly the second reason is sauce for Goose is sauce for Gander too. If the writ petitioner can assail the assessment order for 2018-19 (where Section 12AA benefit have been negatived) by way of a statutory appeal under Section 246 of said Act, there is no reason as to why the writ petitioner cannot do it qua impugned assessment order. This by itself downs the curtains from all these arguments and it douses the writ petitioner's campaign against the writ petitioner. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the captioned writ petition, if the writ petitioner chooses to avail the alternate remedy either by way of an appeal under Section 246 of said Act or by way of a revision under Section 264 of said Act as the case may be, subject to limitation and subject to pre-deposit condition, the appellate authority/revisional authority can consider the appeal/revision on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by observations made in this order as the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the tenability of interference qua the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning set out supra, the sequitur is the captioned writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Denial of benefits under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Allegation that the impugned order is a non-speaking order.
4. Availability of an alternate remedy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner argued that the registration of the assessee, a registered 'Public Charitable Trust' under Section 12AA, was cancelled without providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The court noted that the impugned order did not cancel the registration but merely recorded the fact that the petitioner had not uploaded the Section 12AA registration certificate despite multiple reminders. The court emphasized that there was no evidence to demonstrate why the petitioner failed to upload the certificate, thus negating the claim that the registration was cancelled via the impugned order.

2. Denial of benefits under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner claimed that the benefits under Sections 11 and 12 had been provided for over thirty years and were suddenly declined. The court found that the benefit was not continuously given, as evidenced by the assessment order dated 30.04.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19, which had already denied the exemption. The court highlighted that the petitioner had failed to provide the registration certificate under Section 12AA despite ample opportunities, weakening their claim for continuous benefits.

3. Allegation that the impugned order is a non-speaking order:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was non-speaking and lacked detailed reasoning. The court disagreed, stating that the order, though terse, was not non-speaking. It contained critical paragraphs capturing the crux of the matter, explaining the non-compliance by the petitioner in uploading the required registration certificate. The court held that the order was sufficiently clear and detailed to be considered a speaking order.

4. Availability of an alternate remedy:
The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner had an effective and efficacious alternate remedy available under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, which the petitioner had already utilized for the assessment year 2018-19. The court agreed, emphasizing that the alternate remedy rule is a rule of discretion and should be applied with rigour in fiscal law statutes. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Dunlop India, Satyawati Tandon, and K.C. Mathew, to reinforce the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate statutory remedy. The petitioner's failure to upload the Section 12AA registration certificate despite multiple reminders and the existence of an appeal mechanism under the Income Tax Act led the court to dismiss the writ petition. The court clarified that if the petitioner chose to avail the alternate remedy, the appellate or revisional authority could consider the appeal or revision on its merits, unaffected by the observations made in this order. Consequently, the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →