LAKESHORE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI (2)

WP(C)/18510/2023HC KeralaKLHC01040251202307 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 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. Crucially, until orders are passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and the enforcement letter (Ext P5) are to be deferred. 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, Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Ltd., 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 its appeal (Ext P2) and stay petition (Ext P3). The petitioner had filed these on April 28, 2023, challenging an assessment order (Ext P1). Despite the pending appeal and stay petition, the respondents were threatening to enforce the assessment order through a letter (Ext P5). The petitioner sought to defer further proceedings until the stay petition was decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the second respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and the enforcement letter (Ext P5) should be deferred until the stay petition is decided? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that its appeal and stay petition were pending since April 28, 2023, and that the respondents were threatening to enforce the assessment order. Therefore, the second respondent should be directed to dispose of the stay petition expeditiously, and proceedings should be deferred until then. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents was heard, but does not detail their specific arguments.

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 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18510 OF 2023 PETITIONER: LAKESHORE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD. AGED 72 YEARS XVI/612 NH47 BYPASS, P.O NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S.K. ABDULLA., PIN – 682040 BY ADVS. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS V.ABRAHAM MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI (2) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL SCHEME, NEW DELHI., PIN – 110001 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI., PIN – 682018 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.18510/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 7th day of June,2023

J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext P2 appeal and Ext P3 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time, to defer all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 assessment order.

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 28.04.2023. Notwithstanding the filing of Exts P2 & P3, the respondents are threatening to enforce Ext P1 order through Ext P5 letter. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri. Abraham Joseph Markos, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned standing 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 28.04.2023, 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 this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention that, 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 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts P1 & P5 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/07.06.23 //// P.A.To Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.04.2023 FILED AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 ORDER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 STAY PETITION DATED 28.04.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.05.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →