SONY JOSEPH vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/27776/2023HC KeralaKLHC01060866202322 August 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner is to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The court also stipulated that if a conditional order of stay is proposed, the reasons for it must be stated. Crucially, until orders are passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) are to stand deferred. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sony Joseph, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to expeditiously consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) and had filed the appeal on October 21, 2022, followed by a stay petition on May 18, 2023. The petitioner apprehended that the respondents might enforce the assessment order during the pendency of the stay petition. The respondents were represented by their counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the pending stay petition filed by the petitioner. (Question of procedure/administrative direction) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his stay petition (Ext.P3) has been pending since May 18, 2023, and he is apprehensive about the enforcement of the assessment order (Ext.P1) during this period. He sought an expedited disposal of the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by its counsel, appeared before the court. No specific arguments or contentions were recorded in the judgment regarding the delay or the merits of the stay petition.

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 TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27776 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SONY JOSEPH AGED 52 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, MADICANCKAL HOUSE, KABANIGIRI P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD, PIN - 673579 BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSESSMENT UNIT, ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 3 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 27776 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2023

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

2.

The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent on 21.10.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 stay petition on 18.5.2023. The petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of Ext.P3, the respondents may enforce Ext.P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri. S.Arun Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

WP(C) NO. 27776 OF 2023 3

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 second respondent since 18.5.2023, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the same, immediately. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:- (i) The second 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 the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention, if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P3

WP(C) NO. 27776 OF 2023 4 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall stand deferred. rmm22/8/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 27776 OF 2023 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27776/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23-9-2022 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 144 B OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2020- 21 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL E-FILED ON 21-10-2022 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2020-21 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE AY 2020-21 E-FILED ON 18-5-2023 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT:- CIT (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →