Case Law Details
B. Ramamoorthy Vs Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) (Madras High Court)
In the case of B. Ramamoorthy Vs Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), the petitioner, B. Ramamoorthy, sought the intervention of the Madras High Court to direct the respondent, the Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), to take appropriate action on his representation dated September 5, 2023. The representation pertained to a search and seizure operation conducted by the Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) at the residence of J. Sekar, also known as Sekar Reddy, who is associated with S. R. S. Mining.
The petitioner asserted that after the search and seizure operation, the files related to S. R. S. Mining were transferred from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Non-Corporate Circle 2, Chennai, to DCIT Central Circle 2. He claimed that following this transfer, DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle 2, no longer had jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint on September 5, 2023, which he alleged was not acted upon, leading him to file the present writ petition.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed to a communication dated September 14, 2017, that transferred the files of S. R. S. Mining. He also referenced a letter from Mr. K. G. Arun Raj, Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation), claiming it was issued without jurisdiction. Despite the petitioner providing his Aadhar Card and confirming his complaint through a communication dated November 29, 2023, he contended that no action had been taken on his complaint, thus entitling him to the relief sought.
However, the respondent’s counsel, Mr. A. P. Srinivas, argued that the assessment proceedings for M/s. S. R. S. Mining, the firm in question, had already been concluded. He pointed out that the petitioner was a third party with no connection to the assessee or the assessment proceedings. Therefore, he argued that the writ petition should be dismissed not only because the petitioner lacked locus standi but also because neither M/s. S. R. S. Mining nor its partners had been made respondents in the petition.
The Madras High Court, presided over by the judge, considered the petitioner’s request for discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the petitioner’s affidavit did not clarify his interest in the assessment or investigation matter. The judge agreed with the respondent’s counsel that the petitioner seemed to be raising complaints against S. R. S. Mining, its partners, and a specific officer of the Income Tax Department, none of whom were named as parties in the writ petition.
Given these circumstances, the judge decided not to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit due to the petitioner’s lack of standing and failure to include necessary parties in the case.
As a result, the writ petition, W.P.No.13443 of 2024, was dismissed without any order as to costs, effectively denying the petitioner the relief he sought. The dismissal underscores the importance of having a clear standing and including all relevant parties when seeking judicial intervention, particularly in complex matters involving tax investigations and corporate assessments.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to take appropriate action on his representation dated 05.09.2023.
2. In the affidavit, the petitioner states that a search and seizure operation was conducted by the Director General of Income-tax (Investigation), Chennai at the residence of J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy, S. R. S. Mining. The petitioner further states that the files relating to S. R. S. Mining were transferred from DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle 2 Chennai to DCIT Central Circle 2. By asserting that upon such transfer, DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle 2 ceases to have jurisdiction, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 05.09.2023 and filed the present writ petition by contending that such complaint was not acted upon.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the communication dated 14.09.2017 transferring the files relating to M/s. S. R. S. Mining. He also referred to the letter at pages 31 and 32 of the typed set. By pointing out that Mr. K. G. Arun Raj, Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation), issued such letter without jurisdiction, he submits that the petitioner’s complaint was not acted upon in spite of the petitioner also providing his Aadhar Card and confirming the complaint by communication dated 29.11.2023. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.
4. Mr. A. P. Srinivas, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that assessment proceedings were concluded in respect of a partnership firm called M/s. S. R. S. Mining, which was the assessee. He points out that the petitioner is a rank -third party, who is not related to the assessee or the assessment proceedings in any manner. He submits that the present writ petition is liable to be rejected not only because the petitioner does not have locus standi but also because the petitioner has not joined M/s. S. R. S. Mining or its partners as respondents in this writ petition.
5. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. From the averments in the affidavit, it is unclear as to how the petitioner has any interest in the subject matter of the assessment or investigation. As correctly contended by learned senior standing counsel, the petitioner appears to be complaining about M/s. S. R. S. Mining and its partners as also against a specific officer of the Income-Tax Department. None of these persons have been made parties to this writ petition. In these facts and circumstances, I decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
6. For reasons set out above, W.P.No.13443 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Author Bio
