Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging an income tax assessment order, ruling that the core dispute involves a question of fact unsuitable for adjudication in a writ petition. The appellant, Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty, had contested the assessment for the year 2017-18, alleging violation of natural justice principles due to non-service of crucial notices.
The petitioner claimed they were only alerted to tax arrears via a general communication and later found the assessment order on the Income Tax Department’s web portal. Crucially, it was contended that no communication regarding a draft assessment order, typically required under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act related to faceless assessments, was served, thereby violating natural justice.
The tax authorities countered by submitting records indicating that notices, including a notice under Section 148, were issued electronically to the registered email addresses and mobile number, triggering SMS alerts. They also presented evidence of sending notices via speed post along with postal track records to assert proper service.
A single bench of the High Court had previously dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition, holding that the question of whether notice was properly served constitutes a disputed question of fact. Such factual disputes, the single judge concluded, cannot be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.
In the intra-court appeal, the appellant argued that the single judge failed to appreciate the gravity of the natural justice violation and reiterated that a writ petition is maintainable when natural justice is breached, irrespective of alternate remedies, citing what they referred to as “settled law.”
The Division Bench, after hearing arguments, concurred with the single judge’s assessment. The court held that the determination of whether a notice was properly served is indeed a factual inquiry that necessitates the examination of evidence – a task not typically undertaken by a writ court.
Consequently, the Division Bench found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the judgment of the single judge. The court reaffirmed that the appropriate course of action for the petitioner is to file a statutory appeal before the relevant appellate authority.
Granting a limited concession, the court allowed the appellant a period of one month from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment to file their appeal. The appellate authority has been directed to accept this appeal as being filed within the prescribed time limit and to decide it on its merits after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard. The judgment reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction is generally not the avenue for resolving contested factual matters in tax disputes when statutory appeal mechanisms are available. No specific judicial precedents were cited by the court in its reasoning, which primarily rested on the nature of the disputed question.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
