GMA PINNACLE AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/44163/2023HC KeralaKLHC01098185202326 December 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that since the stay petition was pending before the appellate authority, it was appropriate to pass a decision in the case. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay petition (Ext.P4) and pass appropriate orders thereon within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. This was to be done after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Until such time as the stay petition is decided, further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the demand notice (Ext.P5) were to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, GMA Pinnacle Automotives Private Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi. While these were pending, the 3rd respondent issued a demand notice (Ext.P5), requiring payment of the entire demand or 20% thereof for granting a stay. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the assessment order and seeking expeditious disposal of their appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order (Ext.P1) issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed, and all proceedings pursuant thereto set aside? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the appeal (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously? (Procedural direction) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order and all consequential proceedings. They also prayed for an expeditious disposal of their pending appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority. The petitioner argued that the demand notice requiring 20% of the demand for stay was causing prejudice while their appeal was pending. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

W.P.C.No.44163/2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 5TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 44163 OF 2023 PETITIONER: GMA PINNACLE AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, NH 47, OPPOSITE MUTTOM METRO STATION, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.ABDUL RASHEED ULLATTUTHODIYIL, PIN – 683 106. BY ADVS. DIVYA RAVINDRAN AMMU CHARLES RESPONDENT: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 1(1) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN – 682 018. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.No.44163/2023 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, being aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order issued pertaining to the assessment year 2018-2019 submitted Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the said appeal, Ext.P4 stay petition was also submitted which are pending consideration. In the mean time, Ext.P5 demand notice has been issued by the 3rd respondent, demanding the entire amount or 20% of the demand, for granting stay. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances. The prayers sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition are as follows: “(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash Exhibit P1 order issued by the 1st respondent and all proceedings pursuant thereto; (ii) To direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit P3 appeal and Exhibit P4 stay petition expeditiously; (iii) To pass such other orders, which in the circumstances of this case this Hon’ble Court deems fit.”

After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that since the stay petition is pending consideration before the appellate authority, it is only proper that, a decision in this case be taken. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P4 stay petition and pass appropriate orders thereon after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity for being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P5 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance. ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/26.12.23

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44163/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 15.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 29.04.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 29.04.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →