REMYA VIKRAMAN NAIR REMA DEVI vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WA/491/2024HC KeralaKLHC01097919202405 April 2024Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the learned Single Judge had directed the appellant to pursue the alternate remedy before the statutory authority, it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings while her application was pending before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court modified the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent that pending the disposal of the stay application or appeal, whichever is earlier, by the appellate authority, recovery proceedings against the appellant for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The rest of the directions in the impugned judgment were not interfered with.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Remya Vikraman Nair Rema Devi, challenged an assessment order for assessment years 2016-2017. She filed a statutory appeal and a stay application before the appellate authority. During the pendency of these, recovery steps were initiated. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal and ordered the Appellate Authority to decide the stay application within two months. The appellant filed the present writ appeal against this judgment, contending that the learned Single Judge failed to grant a stay of recovery proceedings until the Appellate Authority decided her stay application/appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Single Judge, while relegating the appellant to the alternate remedy of appeal before the statutory authority, ought to have granted a stay of recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the stay application/appeal by the Appellate Authority. Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge erred by not granting a stay of recovery proceedings, which should have been in place until the Appellate Authority considered her stay application and appeal, as directed by the Single Judge. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue on this issue.

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 DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WA NO. 491 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.11566 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT REMYA VIKRAMAN NAIR REMA DEVI AGED 43 YEARS D/O VIKRAMAN NAIR MUDUMBIL PUTHENVEEDU, KARIKKAKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695007 BY ADVS. K.P.PRADEEP M.J.ANOOPA T.T.BIJU T.THASMI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK , NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 110001 2 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 P.R.AJITH KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. No.491 of 2024 2

JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment years 2016-2017 under the Income Tax Act, the appellant had preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 application for stay pending disposal of the appeal. When recovery steps were initiated by the respondents during the pendency of the statutory appeal and stay application, the appellant approached the writ court through WP(C).No.11566 of 2024, which was disposed by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated 21.03.2024 relegating the appellant to the alternate remedy of appeal and directing the Appellate Authority to dispose the stay application within a period of two months. In the appeal before us, the appellant impugns the said judgment of the learned Single Judge solely on the ground that while disposing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge did not grant a stay of recovery proceedings till such time as the First Appellate Authority considered stay application/appeal as directed by the learned Single Judge.

2.

We have heard Sri.K.P Pradeep, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.R AjithKumar, the learned Standing counsel for W.A. No.491 of 2024 3 the Department.

3.

In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternate remedy before the statutory authority it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the application by the respondent Appellate Authority. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of the stay application or appeal whichever is earlier, by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with.

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →