SABU ADATHARA PAILY vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS

WP(C)/26609/2023HC KeralaKLHC01058309202314 August 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, at any rate, within 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 also stipulated that if a conditional order of stay is proposed, reasons must be provided. Furthermore, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were deferred until an order was passed on the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sabu Adathara Paily, 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 had filed the appeal on 24.10.2022 against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the first respondent. A stay petition was subsequently filed on 2.2.2023. The petitioner apprehended that the respondents might enforce the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal and 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 assessee. (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the stay petition has been pending since 2.2.2023 and sought an expeditious disposal. The assessee also apprehended enforcement of the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal and stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the respondents appeared, but no specific arguments were detailed regarding the delay in disposing of the stay petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 26609 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SABU ADATHARA PAILY, AGED 48 YEARS S/O PAILY, ADATHARA HOUSE, MANTHONDIKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, PIN – 673592 BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI 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 SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 26609 OF 2023 JUDGMENT Dated this the 14th day of August 2023 The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, expeditiously.

The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent on 24.10.2022. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 stay petition on 2.2.2023 before the second respondent. The petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of Exts.P2 and P3, the respondents may enforce Ext.P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition.

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. 26609 OF 2023 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 2.2.2023, 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 this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention that, if the second respondent proposes to pass any conditional 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 Ext.P1 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes

WP(C) NO. 26609 OF 2023

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26609/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26-9-2022 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 24- 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 02-02-2023 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT:- CIT (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →