PALLIKARA KRISHNAKUTTY NAIR RAMACHANDRAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/28091/2023HC KeralaKLHC01061576202323 August 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court clarified that if the 2nd respondent proposed to pass any conditional interim order of stay, reasons must be stated for it. Furthermore, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the notice (Ext.P4) were ordered to stand deferred until orders were passed on the stay petition. The primary reasoning was the pendency of the stay petition and the need for its timely adjudication to prevent potential prejudice to the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pallikara Krishnakutty Nair Ramachandran, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, to expeditiously consider and dispose of an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner had filed the appeal on 27.04.2022 against an assessment order (Ext.P1). While the appeal and stay petition were pending, the 3rd respondent issued a notice (Ext.P4). The petitioner apprehended enforcement of the assessment order and the notice, prompting the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously? (Question of procedure) The petitioner argued that their appeal and stay petition were pending before the 2nd respondent and sought a direction for speedy disposal. The petitioner also apprehended enforcement actions by the respondents. The revenue, represented by Sri.Christopher Abraham, appeared before the court. No specific arguments from the revenue are recorded in the judgment, other than their appearance.

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 C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 28091 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: PALLIKARA KRISHNAKUTTY NAIR RAMACHANDRAN KALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA P.O., THEKKUMKARA, WADAKANCHERY, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680608 BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU AADITYA NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER. OFFICE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 28091 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, expeditiously.

2.

The petitioner's case is that aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal on 27.04.2022 along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P4 notice. The petitioner is apprehensive that the respondents may enforce Exts.P1 and P4. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri.Anil D.Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 stay petition is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3, immediately.

WP(C) NO. 28091 OF 2023 3 Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) It is made clear that if the 2nd respondent proposes to pass any conditional interim order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P4 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/23.08.23

WP(C) NO. 28091 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28091/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.3.2022 U/S 147 R.W 144 READ WITH SECTION 144B FOR A.Y. 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR A.Y. 2017-18. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR A.Y. 2017-18. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10/08/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →