RAJENDRAN MYLAT PUTHENVEEDU, vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/38745/2023HC KeralaKLHC01087224202304 March 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the limited nature of the relief sought by the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed that any demands arising from the assessment order (Ext.P5) shall not be enforced until a decision is taken by the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) on the stay petition (Ext.P7). The Court further directed the 2nd respondent to endeavor to decide the stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The principle established is that the High Court can grant interim relief by staying demands pending the disposal of a stay petition before the appellate authority, especially when the relief sought is limited and procedural.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajendran Mylat Puthenveedu, filed an appeal (Ext.P6) against an assessment order (Ext.P5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (2nd respondent). Concurrently, the petitioner filed an application for stay of demand (Ext.P7) with the same authority. The present writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking a specific interim relief: to stay the enforcement of demands arising from the assessment order (Ext.P5) until the stay petition (Ext.P7) is decided by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is seeking this limited relief through the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand raised in the assessment order (Ext.P5) should be stayed pending the decision on the stay petition (Ext.P7) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand arising from the assessment order should not be enforced until the stay petition, filed along with the appeal, is adjudicated by the appellate authority. The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to stay the demand until the disposal of Ext.P7. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue. The revenue's role in this specific writ petition was to respond to the petitioner's plea for an interim stay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 38745 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: RAJENDRAN MYLAT PUTHENVEEDU, AGED 50 YEARS RAJITHA NIVAS, KOTTATHARA P.O, KALPETTA, KOTTATHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121 BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 3 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 4 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KALPETTA, SULTHAN BATHERY RAOD, KAINATTY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122 SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.38745/2023 -2-

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this court seeking a limited relief. The petitioner has filed Ext.P6 appeal against Ext.P5 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 before 2nd respondent together with Ext.P7 application for stay. The only relief sought for by the petitioner is to stay of the demands in terms of Ext.P5 till Ext.P7 stay petition is decided by the 2 nd respondent.

2.

Having regard to the limited nature of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that any demands in terms of Ext.P5 shall not be enforced till a decision is taken on Ext.P7 stay petition by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall endeavour to take a decision on Ext.P7 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG

W.P (C) No.38745/2023 -3- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38745/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 AOF THE NOTICE DATED 30-3-2021 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE AY 2015-16 Exhibit P2 AOF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 10-11-2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16 Exhibit P3 AOF THE REPLY E-FILED ON 25-11-2021 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22-11-2016 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 Exhibit P5 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15-3-2022 ISSUED U/S 147 R.W.S 144 AND 144B OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16 Exhibit P6 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 28-4-2022 E-FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16 Exhibit P7 AOF THE STAY PETITION E-FILED ON 10-11- 2023 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →