Disposed

Raghupati Hegde, S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde, v. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021WP/107847/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to direct the Income Tax Commissioner to consider his application for appointment as a Registered Valuer under Wealth Tax Rules. The Court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass an order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the respondent consider the petitioner's representation and pass an order within three months.

Raghupati Hegde, S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde, Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.107847/2017 (T-IT)

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

RAGHUPATI HEGDE, S/O MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-I CONTRACT AND VALUER, RESIDENT OF ‘KHAMAKSHI’ RAYARPETE, SIRSI-581401, DIST: U.K.KARWAR.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI A.P.MURARI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI-GOA.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXUREC REPRESENTATION DATED 07.03.2017 OF THE PETITIONER AND TO APPOINT HIM AS REGISTERED VALUER UNDER THE WEALTH TAX RULES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶14

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought

¶18

for the following reliefs:

¶19

i. Issue a writ or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the AnnexureC representation dated 07.03.2017 of the petitioner and to appoint him as Registered Valuer under the Wealth Tax Rules, in accordance with law.

¶20

ii. Pass such other order or directions as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

¶22

It is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 07.03.2017 at Annexure-C submitted to the respondent has not been considered so far by them nor any order has been passed on the

¶23

¶24

same. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶25

Per contra , learned counsel for the

¶26

respondent submits that if reasonable time is given, they would consider and pass necessary order on the said representations.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival submissions, the respondent is hereby directed to address the grievances of the petitioner and consider his representation dated 07.03.2017 at Annexure-C and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

CLK

Raghupati Hegde, S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde, v. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghupati Hegde, S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde, v. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadevappa S/O Sankappa Benni Vs Smt.Gouradevi W/O. Basavaraj Manvi.

Shri.Umesh S/O Hanamamtappa Huchhadi @ Nadagouda Vs Gangavva W/O Sakareppa Huchhadi

Gurudas Venkatraman Markande Vs Lalita W/O. Gangapati Bhat Kurse

Shekappa S/O Mallappa Govindanavar, Vs the Managing Director, Hescom, Hubli.

Hanamanta S/O.Yallappa Arakeri Vs the General Manager

Sri.Shivayya S/O. Mallayya Koppad Vs Parvatavva W/O. Channaveeragouda Patil