Allowed

R Balaji v. the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023WP/9588/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed petitioner's writ petition partially, quashing Stage III tax order due to petitioner's incapacity and lack of participation, restoring proceedings to Show Cause Notice stage and appointing next friend.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned Order-in-original No.67/2023 dated 17.03.2023; proceedings restored to Show Cause Notice dated 27.04.2021; liberty to respondent to issue fresh notice and to petitioner/next friend to

R Balaji Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37237 WP No. 9588 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9588 OF 2023 (T-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

R BALAJI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE C N RANGASWAMY R/AT A-101 , SAMRAT APARTMENT 39 D CROSS EAST AND MAIN ROAD, 9^th BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560078.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. VAIBAV M, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, SOUTH DIVISION III BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE 2^nd FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU 560070.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY MS. PREETHA MAHADEVAN., ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER C.NO.SCN.REF.NO./182/ST/2021-

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:37237 WP No. 9588 of 2023

¶16

SD3 DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.67/2023 VIDE ANNX-A.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has impugned the respondent’s Order-in-original No.67/2023 dated 17.03.2023 [ Annexure-A ] under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The petition is premised in the assertion that starting from the year 2019, the petitioner, the Proprietor of the concern and who has remained unmarried, has been under constant medical care with hospitalization for evaluation of his physical condition as also the reasons for lack of sleep and depression. The subject notice is issued in the month of April 2021 when he was being evaluated and treated for his condition.

¶20

Sri Vaibav M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s brother-inlaw, who was assisting the primary caregiver viz., the

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:37237 WP No. 9588 of 2023

¶23

petitioner’s younger sister, has breathed his last on 23.12.2022, and with his demise, the petitioner’s condition has worsened dramatically. The petitioner could not have known about the issuance of notice or the conclusion of the proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994, and neither the caregiver was aware of these proceedings.

¶24

In fact, Sri Vaibav M submits that he is personally acquainted because the petitioner is his close relative and the petitioner’s younger sister is the caregiver and he continues to be under her care and custody. When queried, Sri Vaibav M also submits that because there cannot be any conflict of interest between the petitioner and the caregiver and she is willing to represent the petitioner as his next friend/guardian not only in the present proceedings but also in the proceedings that may be necessary if there is interference by this Court on the ground of want of opportunity.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:37237 WP No. 9588 of 2023

¶27

Smt. Preetha M, the learned standing counsel for the respondent, submits that the respondent may not be in a position to contest the assertions as regards the petitioner’s physical and mental well being and his inability to attend to his affairs given the medical records that are enclosed to this petition. However, Smt. Preetha M submits that petitioner’s caregiver [his younger sister] may have to initiate proceedings under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 or this Court may have to appoint her as the next friend/guardian but on the condition that she must participate in the proceedings, file all the returns to demonstrate that the Show Cause Notice may not culminate in further proceedings.

¶28

5. Significantly, Smt. Preetha M also submits

¶29

that there is no provision under the Finance Act, 1994 to cover a situation like this but when the assessee is no more, the proceedings would abate and so would all the consequences of the pending

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:37237 WP No. 9588 of 2023

¶32

proceedings. The petitioner’s grievance with the impugned Order-in-original is examined in these circumstances. It would suffice for this Court to opine that in the proceedings such as these, and where the petitioner’s condition is not disputed and his younger sister is willing to participate in the proceedings to protect the petitioner’s interest, this Court is of the considered view that the question concluded by the impugned order must be revisited with due opportunity to the petitioner’s next friend/caregiver [Smt. Nirmala R] to participate in the proceedings and to furnish all such information as may be necessary for closure of the proceedings. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[a] The petition is allowed in part, and the respondent’s impugned Order-in-original No.67/2023 dated 17.03.2023 is quashed,

¶35

and the proceedings restored to the stage from Show Cause Notice dated 27.04.2021

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:37237 WP No. 9588 of 2023

¶38

with liberty to the respondent to issue

¶39

fresh Notice extending another opportunity and liberty to the petitioner/his next friend and guardian to file response.

¶40

[b] Smt. Nirmala R, W/o. late Mohanram, No.403, Padmashree Residency, No.7, 28^th Main Road, 6^th Phase, J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078, is appointed as the next friend/guardian of the petitioner for such proceedings.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

AN/-

R Balaji v. the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Balaji v. the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Peekay Roller Folur Mills Vs State of Karnataka

Mercedes-Benz Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Arto)

Smt H Mahalakshmi Vs Sri T Rajendra

Sri G S Bhaskar Vs Sri Shantharaju B

Mr. Vinay Narayanswamy Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Pvt. Lt Vs Sri Abhish Chandhok