The Bench reiterated that the issue of proper notice is a factual matter requiring examination of evidence, which is beyond the scope of a writ petition under Article 226.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the question of ‘whether proper notice was served or not’ is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench, comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S., upheld the decision of the Single Judge, affirming that such factual disputes must be resolved through statutory remedies rather than writ jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to an assessee who was notified by the Income Tax Authorities regarding tax arrears for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The authorities referred to an assessment order dated 15.03.2022, which was claimed to have been served via email.
The assessee contended that upon accessing the Income Tax Department’s web portal, it was discovered that the assessment order was actually passed on 24.03.2022. Furthermore, the assessee argued that no communication regarding the draft assessment order was received, thereby violating the provisions of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
Writ Petition Before the Kerala High Court
The assessee filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court, challenging the assessment order. However, the Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the issue of whether proper notice was served is a disputed question of fact. Since factual disputes cannot be adjudicated under Article 226, the Single Judge directed the assessee to seek redressal through the statutory appellate mechanism within two weeks.
Appeal Before the Division Bench
The assessee subsequently filed an appeal against the Single Judge’s order. However, the Division Bench concurred with the Single Judge’s findings. The Bench reiterated that the issue of proper notice is a factual matter requiring examination of evidence, which is beyond the scope of a writ petition under Article 226. Therefore, the court refused to intervene and upheld the Single Judge’s directive to approach the statutory authority.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench stated:
“As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Conclusion
In light of these findings, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing that factual disputes like “whether proper notice was issued or not” under tax assessments must be resolved through statutory remedies rather than constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner
- Case Number: WA NO. 712 OF 2023
- Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
- Counsel for Appellant: Premjit Nagendran
- Counsel for Respondent: Christopher Abraham
This judgment highlights the importance of following statutory procedures for resolving factual disputes related to tax assessments, rather than seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
READ MORE
Section 87A Rebate Confusion: Capital Gains Taxpayers Might Face Notices – What You Need to Know
Delhi High Court Rules: CESTAT Cannot Reject Appeals Due to Incorrect Pre-Deposit Account