Case Law Details
Rupesh Srivastava Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Karnataka High Court)
In a recent development, the Karnataka High Court (HC) addressed the plea of Rupesh Srivastava against the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The HC issued directives to the government to consider and resolve the representation concerning the Section 80TTA deduction limit. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case and its implications.
Detailed Analysis: The case, Rupesh Srivastava Vs CBDT, unfolded as a writ petition seeking direction for addressing the petitioner’s representation dated September 17, 2023. Despite the petitioner’s submissions and the urgency highlighted, the government had not taken any steps to address the grievances by the specified date. The petitioner emphasized the urgency due to the upcoming budget presentation on February 1, 2024.
The Karnataka HC, presided over by Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, took note of the petitioner’s concerns. Advocates Sandeep Huilgol, M. Dilip, and Chandrashekar M. represented the petitioner, revenue, and the Union of India, respectively.
Section 80TTA, at the center of the dispute, allows a deduction of interest up to Rs. 10,000 earned from savings accounts with commercial banks, cooperative banks, or post offices.
The court’s decision, as outlined in the judgment, involved disposing of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondents to address the petitioner’s grievances and pass appropriate orders on the representation by January 31, 2024. The HC emphasized the need for expeditious action in accordance with the law.
Conclusion: The Karnataka High Court’s decision in the Rupesh Srivastava Vs CBDT case brings attention to the urgency of addressing representations related to the Section 80TTA deduction limit. Despite the government’s assurance to consider and pass appropriate orders, the court deemed it necessary to set a deadline of January 31, 2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 17.09.2023 [Annexure-B] made by the petitioner within a stipulated time frame.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
3. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is despite submission of the representation dated 17.09.2023, the respondents have not taken any steps to address the grievances of the petitioner nor passed appropriate orders on the said representation and in the light of the fact that the budget for the financial year 2024-25 is scheduled to be presented before the parliament on 01.02.2024, the petitioner is before this Court pleading urgency in the matter.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondents would consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representation in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the concerned respondents to address the grievances of the petitioner and consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 17.09.2023 [Annexure-B] submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate on or before 31.01.2024.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
