Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made the remarks recently while coming to the rescue of a widow, Leelavathi, who challenged IT department’s demand to pay 20 per cent of the assessed tax amount when her appeal against the assessment was pending before the appellate authority.
Logo
NATION
WORLD
STATES
OPINIONS
CITIES
BUSINESS
SPORT
GOOD NEWS
MOVIES
PHOTOS
VIDEOS
WEB SCRAWL
E-PAPER
Advertisement
Tamil Nadu
Madras High Court slams I-T department for non-filing of counter-affidavits on time, leading to pendency
Judge says timely filing would save judicial time and improve disposal rate.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court(File photo| Express)
R Sivakumar
Updated on:
29 Aug 2024, 4:30 pm
2 min read
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has flagged the issue of non-filing of counter-affidavits on time in cases relating to Income Tax, leading to delay in rendering justice.
The Court wanted the officers of the I-T department to cooperate with the standing counsels so that judicial time does not get wasted.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made the remarks recently while coming to the rescue of a widow, Leelavathi, who challenged IT department’s demand to pay 20 per cent of the assessed tax amount when her appeal against the assessment was pending before the appellate authority.
The judge noted that generally the litigant public is under the impression that the pendency of the cases is caused by the courts, in contrast to the fact that the courts will always “take strenuous efforts to dispose of the matters” when both the parties have made out the pleadings.
“Majority of writ petitions have been pending for want of counter-affidavits and lack of co-operation on behalf of the statutory authorities and the standing counsel and government pleaders, who represent them,” he said.
Emphasising that there cannot be any excuse for not filing the counter-affidavits on time, he said the court expects all the respective standing counsels to be prompt in filing the counter-affidavits and make themselves ready to argue the cases without seeking more adjournments so that judicial time would not only be saved but more cases would be disposed of.
Justice Ramasamy wanted the authorities concerned of the IT department to cooperate with their respective standing counsels in filing the counter-affidavits without seeking more adjournments.
The petition pertained to tax demand sent to the woman. She stated that her ancestral property was sold for Rs. 21.85 lakh with six members having shares on it. However, an assessment order was passed for a sum of Rs. 57.72 lakh without assigning reasons by the assessment officer, who directed her to deposit Rs. 11.54 lakh, which is 20 per cent of the demand as her appeal before the appellate authority was pending.
She challenged this order in the High Court. Senior standing counsel B Ramaswamy, appearing for the I-T department, opposed granting any relief but said the deposit amount may be reduced to 15 per cent.
The judge, after considering the submissions and taking into account the hardship of the woman, directed her to deposit Rs. 2.50 lakh within four weeks and upon such deposit, the respondent authorities shall stay the recovery of tax demand.
Appreciating the senior standing counsel Ramaswamy for filing the counter-affidavit on the first day when it came up for admission the judge said he was unable to understand as to why other counsels could not file counter-affidavits on time in their cases
