Two writ petitions seeking to restrain income tax recovery against a welfare fund based on an exemption. The court dismissed them as infructuous after the authorities subsequently granted the sought-after exemption.
Writ petitions disposed of as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.12451 & 12452 of 2012 and W.M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2012
Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Welfare Fund Committee Represented by its Secretary, Bar Council Buildings, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
... Petitioner in both writ petitions Vs.
... Respondents in both writ petitions
Prayer in W.P.No.12451 of 2012 : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1 st respondent from in any manner proceeding with the recovery of income tax or surcharge or interest or penalty pursuant to the assessment made in reference to the assessment year 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 20072008, 2008-2009 against the funds of the petitioner in view of the embargo under Section 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Advocates'
Clerks Fund Act, 1999 (Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1999) are passed. Prayer in W.P.No.12452 of 2012: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1 st respondent from in any manner proceeding with the recovery of income tax or surcharge or interest or penalty pursuant to the assessment made in reference to the assessment year 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 20072008, 2008-2009 till the disposal of the application filed under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the petitioner herein before the 3 rd respondent on 19.07.2011.
For Petitioner in both writ petitions : Mr.S.R.Raghunathan
For Respondents in both writ petitions : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel for IT for R1 to R3 Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi SCGSC for R4
C O M M O N O R D E R
The respective learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner and respondents made a submission that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the Competent Authorities granted exemption as sought for by the petitioner. In view of the fact that the grievances of the writ petitioner has been redressed, no further adjudication needs to be entertained in respect of the grounds raised in these writ petitions.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(L.A)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Pns
To
W.P.Nos.12451 & 12452 of 2012 and W.M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2012
NMI (CO) K.RK. (30.07.2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petitions challenging income tax recovery should be allowed when exemption is subsequently granted.
Whether connected miscellaneous petitions should be closed consequentially.
Whether income tax recovery proceedings can proceed against exempt funds while exemption is under challenge.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Welfare Fund Committee
The Assessing Officer
The Appellate Authority
The Member (Exemption)
Union of India
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
