M/S. SREE BALAJI TRADERS vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/22994/2023HC KeralaKLHC01050434202314 July 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the competent authority to either dispose of the statutory appeal (Ext.P2) or to take up and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P4) and the application for condonation of delay (Ext.P3). This disposal is to be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that all recovery action pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall stand deferred until the aforementioned exercise is completed and the resultant order is communicated to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Sree Balaji Traders, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) against the assessment order, along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) and an application for condonation of delay (Ext.P3). The petitioner sought either the setting aside of the assessment order or a direction for the speedy disposal of the statutory appeal. The Income Tax Department, represented by its standing counsel, acknowledged that there was no legal impediment to the disposal of the appeal and condonation of delay applications. The Department also conceded that recovery action would be deferred until these applications were decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should set aside the assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the respondent revenue authorities. 2. Whether the High Court should direct the competent authority to dispose of the statutory appeal (Ext.P2) filed by the petitioner within a specified time frame. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order (Ext.P1) should be set aside. Alternatively, they prayed for a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of their statutory appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously. The petitioner relied on the fact that they had filed the necessary appeal and stay petitions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that there was no legal impediment to the competent authority taking up and disposing of the statutory appeal (Ext.P2) and the related applications (Ext.P3 and Ext.P4). The revenue also agreed to defer recovery action until a decision was made on these applications.

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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 22994 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S. SREE BALAJI TRADERS, 9/252, BIGBAZAR, CALICUT, PIN - 673001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BALAJI.J., 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). SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22994 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner – which is a partnership firm - impugns Ext.P1 assessment order, but concedes that it has preferred Ext.P2 statutory appeal against it, accompanied by Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P3 application for condonation of delay in filing it. They thus pray that, either Ext.P1 be set aside; or that the statutory appeal be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2.

In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Harisankar V.Menon - learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Christopher Abraham - learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, submitted that there does not appear to be any legal impediment in Exts.P2 and P3 being taken and disposed of by the competent Authority and conceded that, until such time as it is done, the action for recovery against the petitioner will not be taken forward.

3.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I dispose of this writ petition, directing the competent Authority to either dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, or to take up Exts.P3 and P4 applications and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible but not WP(C) NO. 22994 OF 2023 3 later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all recovery action pursuant to Ext.P1 shall stand deferred. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu

WP(C) NO. 22994 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22994/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DTD. 16-03- 2023 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21-06-2023 Exhibit 3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21-06-2023 Exhibit P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21-06-2023

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →