ABDUL RAZIK P., vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/23700/2023HC KeralaKLHC01051932202321 July 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) 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 court stipulated that the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, if the second respondent intended to pass a conditional order of stay, specific reasons for imposing such conditions must be stated. Until an order is passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the notice (Ext.P4) were deferred. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the assessment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abdul Razik P., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously. The petitioner had filed the appeal on June 10, 2022, against an assessment order (Ext.P1). During the pendency of the appeal, the third respondent (Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Kozhikode) issued a notice (Ext.P4). The petitioner had filed a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the second respondent on July 20, 2022, which remained pending. The petitioner prayed for an immediate consideration and disposal of the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the National Faceless Appeal Centre to expeditiously consider and dispose of the pending stay petition filed by the petitioner, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his stay petition (Ext.P3) has been pending before the second respondent since July 20, 2022, and sought a direction for its expeditious disposal. The petitioner relied on the general principle of timely disposal of appeals and stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by its counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's prayer for expeditious disposal of the stay petition. The revenue's counsel appeared before the court.

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 FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 23700 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ABDUL RAZIK P., AGED 58 YEARS S/O.MOIDEEN, 37/465C, BAITHUL RUMAN, MORTH PARAMBA, KARUVASSERI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673010 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)., PIN - 110001 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 678001 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 23700 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 21st day of July, 2023

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.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 10.6.2022. During the pendency of the appeal, the third respondent issued Ext.P4 notice. The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 stay petition before the second respondent in Ext.P2 appeal. The petitioner prays that the second respondent may be directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition, immediately. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri. Harishankar V.Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher

WP(C) NO. 23700 OF 2023 3 Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

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 20.7.2022, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:- (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) 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, all WP(C) NO. 23700 OF 2023 4 further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P4 shall stand deferred. rmm21/7/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 23700 OF 2023 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23700/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 23-03-2022 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10-06- 2022 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-07-2022 Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 07-07-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →