Writ Petition Challenging Orders Of Tamil Nadu Assessing Authority Not Maintainable Merely For Having A Bank Account In Kerala: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the writ petition challenging orders of Tamil Nadu assessing authority is not maintainable merely for having a bank account in Kerala.

The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. has observed that merely because the appellant has a bank account within the State of Kerala, he cannot maintain a Writ Petition challenging the orders passed by an assessing authority who is situated in Tamilnadu, more so when the orders in question are issued in connection with the business carried out by the appellant in Tamilnadu.

The appellant/assessee, who was the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 8064 of 2024, was dismissed by a single judge by the judgement dated February 29, 2024. The Writ Petition was preferred, seeking a direction to lift the attachment on a bank account maintained by the petitioner with the respondent department, which happens to be located within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Single Judge found that the attachment of the bank account of the appellant in Wayanad was consequent to the exercise of power by the assessing authority under the Income Tax Act, who was situated in Ooty, in Nilgiris District, which comes within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.

The single judge found that the Writ Petition could not be maintained before this Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The court has relied on the decision of M/S. Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2007 (6) SCC 769] and the later decisions, including the decision of this Court in Aparna Balan and Another v. Union of India and Others [2018 4 KHC 191] as well as V. Viswanathan v. State of Kerala [2014 (4) KLT 798 (FB)] and the judgement dated November 22, 2022, of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 1707 of 2022 (K. S. Jamestin v. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, and Another) and held that the judgement of the Single Judge requires no interference.

Counsel For Appellant: M.P. Shameem Ahamed, Akhil Philip Manithottiyil Daniya, Rasheed Palliyalil

Counsel For Respondent: Jose Joseph

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 218

Case Title: Manaf Ali Hassan Versus The National Faceless Assessment Centre

Case No.: WA NO. 454 OF 2024

Click Here To Read The Order