CHALAKKAL ANTONY JOSE VALLOOR, vs. THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WA/119/2024HC KeralaKLHC01077121202402 February 2024Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court modified the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Court held that when an assessee is relegated to an alternative remedy before a statutory authority, it is incumbent upon the Court to protect the assessee from recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the stay petition or appeal by the appellate authority, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the Court directed that recovery proceedings against the appellant for the amounts confirmed by Ext.P13 order shall be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the stay petition or appeal by the appellate authority. The Court also directed that the application for early hearing of the appeal (Ext.P19) should be considered by the Commissioner of Income-Tax in accordance with law. The rest of the directions in the impugned judgment were not interfered with.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Chalakkal Antony Jose Valloor, challenged an order (Ext.P13) before the Kerala High Court via a writ petition. He had filed an appeal (Ext.P14) and a stay petition (Ext.P17) before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), the appellate authority. Simultaneously, he filed an application for out-of-turn hearing (Ext.P19) before the Commissioner of Income-Tax. Despite these filings, coercive steps were initiated for recovery of the confirmed demand. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge with a direction to the NFAC to consider the stay application, but without granting a stay on recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in not granting a stay of recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the stay petition by the appellate authority, when the assessee had been relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal. Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that since he had preferred an appeal and a stay petition before the statutory appellate authority, and was facing coercive recovery steps, the High Court should have protected him from recovery proceedings pending the decision on his stay application. The appellant relied on the principle that when an alternative remedy is available and pursued, the assessee should be protected from immediate recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the High Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WA NO. 119 OF 2024
WP(C).No. 37397 of 2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 WA NO. 119 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2023 IN WP(C) 37397/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT: CHALAKKAL ANTONY JOSE VALLOOR, AGED 57 YEARS S/O ANTONY,CHALAKKAL HOUSE,PUTHENPEEDIKA, ANTHIKAD, PIN - 680642 BY ADVS.NITISH SATHESH SHENOY M.S.INSAAF MUHAMMEDU SHERRY SAMUEL OOMMEN SREELEKSHMI BEN SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 4TH FLOOR,MAYUR BHAWAN,CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MAYUR BHAWAN,CONNAUGHT LANE,BARAKHAMBA,NEW DELHI -REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PIN - 110001 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,ST NAGAR,TRICHUR, PIN - 680001 4 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1),THRISSUR,AAYAKAR BHAVAN,INCOME TAX OFFICE,SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR,KERALA, PIN - 680001 SC-G.KEERTHIVAS SRI. P.G.JAYASHANKER, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024 Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 37397 of 2023 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2023 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:

2.

The appellant had impugned Ext.P13 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.P13 order, he has preferred Ext.P14 appeal along with Ext.P17 stay petition before the 2nd respondent, the Appellate Authority. The appellant has also preferred Ext.P19 application before the 3rd respondent seeking out of turn hearing of the appeal. In the meantime, coercive steps were taken for realisation of the demands. Therefore, the appellant preferred WP(C) No.37397/2023 before this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate order on Ext.P17 stay application. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the stay petition by the said respondent.

3.

We have heard Sri. Nithish Sathesh Shenoy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. G. Keerthivas, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department.

4.

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 petition or appeal, whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by Ext.P13 order shall be kept in abeyance. Ext.P19 application for early hearing of the appeal shall also be considered by the 3rd respondent in accordance with law. 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →