The Madras High Court recently dismissed the writ petition filed against the Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation) ad mining company for lack of Locus Standi and did not include them as respondents/parties to the writ petition.
The petitioner, B.Ramamoorthy had sought direction to the respondent to take action on his representation dated 05th September 2023, following a search and seizure operation at the residence of J. Sekar alias Sekar Reddy, linked to S.R.S. Mining.
The petitioner contended that jurisdiction over the mining company’s files had been transferred to DCIT Central Circle 2 from DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle 2 Chennai, rendering the latter incompetent to act.
The 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 the Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation), issued such a letter without jurisdiction, he submitted 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.
Mr. A.P. Srinivas, senior standing counsel for the respondent, argued that the petitioner, as a third party unrelated to the assessment proceedings of M/s. S.R.S. Mining, lacked locus standi. He also submitted that the petitioner’s failure to include S.R.S. Mining or its partners as respondents in the petition.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy concluded that “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.”
Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. Mr.P.C.Harikumar for Mr.P.C.Harikumar Associates and S.Charuhasan appeared for the petitioner.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
