LEO KOLATHU JAMES, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/22594/2023HC KeralaKLHC01049499202312 July 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner must be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The court also noted that if a conditional order of stay is proposed, the third respondent must provide reasons for it. Furthermore, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and the notice (Ext P4) are deferred until an order is 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 petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Leo Kolathu James, 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 Appeal Centre, to expeditiously consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext P2) and stay petition (Ext P3). The petitioner had filed the appeal on June 1, 2020, against an assessment order (Ext P1). A stay petition was filed on June 29, 2023. Subsequently, the first respondent issued a notice (Ext P4). The petitioner apprehended that the assessment order might be enforced during the pendency of the appeal and stay petition. The High Court heard both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the third respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition expeditiously, and if so, within what timeframe? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the stay petition filed on June 29, 2023, was pending and that there was an apprehension of enforcement of the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal and stay petition. The petitioner sought a direction for expeditious disposal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, appeared before the court. No specific arguments or contentions are recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

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 12TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 22594 OF 2023 PETITIONER: LEO KOLATHU JAMES, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. JAMES KURIAKOSE, KOLATHU HOUSE, NEELAMPEROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 686534 BY ADVS. AJI V.DEV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV S.SAJEEVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, A.N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688011 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686002 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI, PIN – 110003 BY ADV JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.22594/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 12th 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 before the third respondent on 01.06.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed Ext P3 stay petition on 29.06.2023 in Ext P2 appeal. Now, the first respondent has issued Ext P4 notice. The petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of Exts P2 & P3, the respondents may enforce Ext P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri. Aji V.Dev, 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 Ext P3 stay petition is pending consideration before the third respondent since 29.06.2023, 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 proceedings pursuant to Exts P1 & P4 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/12.07.23 //// P.A.To Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 20.12.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 01.06.2020 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2023 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.05.2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →