1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND HON BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL No.6764 OF 2017 BETWEEN: MPHASIS CORPORATION, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, SRI K.R.GIRISH, SON OF SRI.RATNA KRISHNA KALPATHI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 460, PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1101, NEW YORK, NY 1006 USA. APPELLANT (BY SRI SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. 2 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE, ROOM NO.441, 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA VITH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION 45709 OF 2017 DATED 21/11/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Aggrieved by order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.45709 of 2017 dated 21.11.2017, dismissing writ petition on ground that it is premature, writ petitioner is in appeal. 3 2. primary contention of Sri A.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant s learned Counsel is that there were almost eleven grounds urged for consideration before learned Single Judge. Rather than considering contentions raised by writ petitioner, learned Single Judge has merely held that writ petition is premature and has dismissed writ petition. It is his plea that certain important issues were raised for consideration which required to be considered. That they go to root of matter. Whether contentions required to be accepted or not is secondary, but they do deserve merit by learned Single Judge. 3. same is disputed by learned Counsel for respondents. He submits that in view of holding that petition is premature, it is not necessary to consider any of issues involved. Therefore, it is merely technical ground that all those contentions are required to be considered. 4. On hearing learned Counsels, we are of view that appropriate interference is called for. 4 5. writ petition was filed on various grounds. One of grounds on which writ petition was dismissed is that interference in instant proceedings which prima facie appear to have been validly initiated, is not necessary. Therefore, keeping it open for petitioner-assessee to press objections before Assessing Authority and Appellate Authorities under Act to decide objections and adjudicate on same, petition was dismissed as premature. 6. We are of considered view that contentions of writ petitioner are required to be considered on merits, especially when jurisdiction of authority itself is questioned. Jurisdiction is important issue. Therefore, we are of view that matter requires to be re-considered on merits. 7. Under these circumstances, writ appeal is allowed. order dated 21.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.45709 of 2017 is set aside. writ petition requires be heard afresh on merits including 5 objection of respondents that writ petition is not maintainable. 8. respondents are at liberty to file their statement of objections before learned Single Judge. In view of pendency of appeal before Assessing Authority, learned Single Judge is requested to dispose off petition as expeditiously as possible. Till disposal of writ petition, interim order granted by this Court shall continue. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR Mphasis Corporation v. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bengaluru / Addl. CIT, Bengaluru / DCIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru