JACOB THOMAS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/23069/2023HC KeralaKLHC01050594202319 July 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if the third respondent proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be stated. Furthermore, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and notices (Exts P4 & P6) pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 were ordered to stand deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of disposing of the stay petition and deferring recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jacob Thomas, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, 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 and stay petition before the second respondent on February 10, 2020. Subsequently, the first respondent issued notices (Exts P4 & P6). The appeal and stay petition were then transferred to the third respondent. The petitioner apprehended recovery proceedings based on the assessment order during the pendency of his appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the third respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously, and if so, within what timeframe? 2. Whether recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and subsequent notices (Exts P4 & P6) should be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that his appeal and stay petition were pending before the third respondent and sought their expeditious disposal. He also sought a deferment of recovery proceedings until a decision was made on the stay petition. Revenue's Contentions: The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded in the judgment for the revenue.

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 19TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 23069 OF 2023 PETITIONER: JACOB THOMAS AGED 77 YEARS 1 - MULAMOOTTIL, KOZHENCHERRY PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689641 BY ADVS. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA JOHN VITHAYATHIL AIBEL MATHEW SIBY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689641 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686001 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.23069/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 19th day of July,2023

J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to direct the third 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 and Ext P3 stay petition before the second respondent on 10.02.2020. Subsequently, the first respondent has issued Exts P4 & P6 notices. Thereafter, Exts P2 & P3 have been transferred to the third respondent. During the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the petitioner is apprehensive that the respondents may enforce Ext P1 assessment order through Exts P4 & P6. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri. Abraham Joseph Markos, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Exts P2 & P3 are pending consideration before the third respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) The third 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 third 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 stay petition, all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts P1, P4 & P6 pertaining to the assessment order 2017-18 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/19.07.23 //// P.A.To Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/12/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.5841/2020 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/07/2023 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →