M/S. WEXCO HOMES PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 order before this Court in the writ petition when confronted with recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by the order. It was the case of the appellant that against Ext.P1 order, it has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext. P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent, the Appellate Authority. In the meantime, coercive steps were taken for realisation of the demands. Therefore, the appellant preferred WP(C) No. 3483 of 2024 before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, however, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the stay petition within a period of four months. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant stay of recovery proceedings.

We have heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Susie B. Varghese, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department.

In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority, it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the petitions 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 petitions or appeals whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp