2019 (6) TMI 1169 - HC - Income Tax

Non-consideration of representation at Ext.P2 - The petitioner is concerned with a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent as to the petitioner having cheated the 3rd respondent of ₹ 45 crores - HELD THAT - The statement as made by Mr. Hariharan is referred and recorded. By granting the liberty as prayed for, the writ petition is dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, it is made clear that, this Court has not examined the merits of grievance canvassed by the writ petitioner or other objections raised by Sri. G. Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for R3. It is for the department to look into the issue , in the manner provided by law and decide accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking liberty to send a reminder or file a representation before the respondents.
2. Dismissal of the writ petition without examining the merits of the grievance.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner, represented by Mr. G. Hariharan, argued the writ petition extensively, seeking permission to send a reminder or file a representation before the respondents in compliance with the order dated 12.04.2017 in a specific case. Despite the initial inaction and subsequent reminder, the petitioner now requests the court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India once again. Mr. Hariharan's statement and request for liberty were duly noted and recorded by the court.

Issue 2:
The court, represented by Mr. S. V. Bhatti, J., granted the petitioner the liberty to send a reminder or representation to the respondents. Subsequently, the court dismissed the writ petition without delving into the merits of the grievances raised by the petitioner or the objections put forth by Mr. G. Sreekumar, the counsel for one of the respondents. It was explicitly clarified by the court that the dismissal did not entail an examination of the merits of the case, leaving it to the concerned department to address the issue as per the provisions of the law and make a decision accordingly. The court's decision emphasized the procedural aspect, directing the department to handle the matter in the prescribed manner and reach a conclusion based on legal considerations.