K.Dharmalingam vs Principal Commissioner Of Income ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12025 Mad

                                                                            W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   Dated : 21.06.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                            W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017


                     K.Dharmalingam
                     Proprietor of Sri Vasavi Tractors
                     454, C.C.Road, Polur,
                     Tamil Nadu-606803.                              ...   Petitioner in
                                                                           W.P.No.25624/2017
                     M.Palani
                     Proprietor of Sri Vasavi Enterprises
                     454, C.C.Road, Polur,
                     Tamil Nadu-606803.                              ...   Petitioner in
                                                                           W.P.No.25625/2017
                     P.Kalaiselvi
                     Proprietor of Sri Vasavi Agencies
                     454, C.C.Road, Polur,
                     Tamil Nadu-606803.                              ...   Petitioner in
                                                                           W.P.No.25626/2017

                                                            - Vs -


                     Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- VIII,
                     6th Floor, Kannammai Building, No.611
                     Anna Salai, Chennai – 6.                 ... Respondent in all W.Ps

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017

Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to credit

the Advance Tax paid by the Petitioner and the Tax deducted at Source lying to

the credit of the Petitioner, for the assessment years 2010 – 11 to 2015 – 16,

totalling to Rs.28,02,365/- and the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16,

totalling to Rs.5,36,740/- and the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16,

totalling to Rs.25,37,159/- respectively, in computing the tax liability of the

Petitioner under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, contained in Chapter

IX of the Finance Act, 2016, and to further direct the Respondent to issue a

Form No.4 under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016, certifying full

and final payment of tax, surcharge along with penalty by the Petitioner under

Section 187 of the Finance Act, 2016, in respect of the income declared by the

petitioner.

                               For Petitioners      : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy

                               For Respondent       : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar
                                                      Standing Counsel







https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                         W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017

                                                COMMON ORDER

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the

respondent to credit the Advance Tax paid by the petitioner and the Tax

deducted at Source lying to the credit of the Petitioner, for the Assessment

Years 2010 – 11 to 2015 – 16, totalling to Rs.28,02,365/- in computing the tax

liability of the Petitioner under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016,

contained in Chapter IX of the Finance Act, 2016, and to further direct the

Respondent to issue a Form No.4 under the Income Declaration Scheme Rules,

2016, certifying full and final payment of tax, surcharge along with penalty by

the petitioner under Section 187 of the Finance Act, 2016 in respect of the

income declared by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly

contended that admittedly the petitioner had not filed his Return of income for

the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16. However, he paid the advance tax

amount of Rs.28,02,365/-. In this regard, he submitted an application under the

Income Declaration Scheme 2016, to deal with the issues and credit the

advance Tax paid by the petitioner and the Tax deducted at Source lying to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017

credit of the Petitioner. However, the respondent has not taken any action with

reference to the application submitted by the Writ Petitioner on 06.09.2017.

3. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner relied on the Judgment of

the Delhi High Court in Kumudam Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Central Board

of Direct Taxes (2017) 393 ITR 599 (Delhi). It is contended that the matter

went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Special Leave Petition

was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent disputed

the grounds raised in the Writ Petition by stating that the petitioner is not

entitled for the relief based on the judgments, more specifically delivered by

the Bombay High Court.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that mixed question of facts

and law is to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences to

be produced by the respective parties before the Competent Authority. High

Court cannot conduct a Roving enquiry with reference to the disputed facts in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017

a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such an

exercise is to be done by the Competent Authority by affording an opportunity

to the parties concerned. In the present case, the application of law is to be

made with reference to the facts as well as the legal principles laid down with

reference to the provisions of the Act. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the

relief as such sought for cannot be granted in these Writ Petitions to the

petitioner, and the adjudication is required for forming an opinion to decide the

issue.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is suffice if a

direction issued to the respondent to consider the issues raised by the petitioner

and take a decision and pass orders. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to

consider the issues raised by the petitioner in his representation dated

06.09.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and by

following the procedures contemplated as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Till the final orders are passed in the representation submitted by

the Writ Petitioner, the respondent is directed not to initiate any coercive action

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017

against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to send one more copy of the

representation with all necessary documents along with the order passed by this

Court in these Writ Petitions within a period of one week from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With these directions, the Writ Petitions stands disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

21.06.2021 Index:Yes / No Internet:Yes / No Speaking / Non-Speaking Order dh/ssn

To The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- VIII, 6th Floor, Kannammai Building, No.611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 6.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,

dh/ssn

W.P.Nos.25624 to 25626 of 2017

21.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/