IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
S. Rajendra Babu, J.
R. Bhardwaj —Appellant
Vs.
Chief Commissioner (Admn.) and others —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11110 of 1987
Decided on : 07-12-1988
Warrant - Jurisdiction - The court quashed the warrant issued under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, who issued the warrant, had no jurisdiction over the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner questioned the warrant issued under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The court quashed the warrant and dismissed the application for damages, as the petitioner had filed a suit for similar relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the warrant issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, and therefore quashed the proceedings conducted pursuant to that warrant. The court also dismissed the application for damages and declined to consider the allegations of mala fides against respondent No. 2, as the petitioner had filed a separate suit for damages.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to issue the warrant, validity of the warrant, and the petitioner's claim for damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the concession made by the Department's senior standing counsel regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to issue the warrant.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute, leading to the quashing of the warrant and dismissal of the application for damages.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.—In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the warrant issued under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the same could not have been issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax who has no jurisdiction over the petitioner. This position is factually conceded by learned senior standing counsel for the Department. Hence, the proceedings conducted pursuant to that warrant stand quashed.
2. During the pendency of this petition, an application (I.A. 1. ) has been filed claiming damages. It appears that the petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 40 of 1975, on the file of City Civil Judge, Court Hall No. 17, Bangalore, for similar relief. Inasmuch as the petitioner can pursue the remedy claimed in I.A. 1. in that suit, it is unnecessary to entertain this I.A. 1. It is dismissed.
3. The petitioner has made several allegations of mala fides against respondent No. 2. Inasmuch as I have quashed the impugned proceedings on another ground, it is unnecessary for me to consider the same, particularly, when the petitioner has filed a suit for damages and he can very well urge the allegations in relation to mala fides in that suit.
4. However, the petition is allowed and the rule made absolute on the basis of the concession made by learned senior standing counsel for the Department.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.