M/S. ELECTRO LINK vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/18087/2023HC KeralaKLHC01039330202306 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, 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 an order is passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and the demand letter (Ext P4) 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, M/s. Electro Link, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to expeditiously consider and dispose of their appeal (Ext P2) and stay petition (Ext P3). The petitioner had filed these on April 25, 2023, aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext P1) passed by the revenue. Subsequently, the third respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Tirur, issued a letter (Ext P4) threatening to enforce the assessment order. The petitioner sought to defer further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order until a decision was made on their stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the pending stay petition filed by the petitioner, and until such time, defer further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they have filed an appeal and a stay petition against the assessment order and that the Income Tax Officer is threatening to enforce the order. They sought a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay petition and deferment of further proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or contentions for the revenue are detailed 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 TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18087 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S. ELECTRO LINK 5/356BCD, EASWARAMANGALAM, THAVANOOR, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, FIDA ZAIN, PIN – 679573 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 2, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676101 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.18087/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 6th 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 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 25.04.2023. Now, the third respondent has issued Ext P4 letter threatening to enforce Ext P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, 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 25.04.2023, 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 & P4 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/06.06.23 //// P.A.To Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DTD. 26-03- 2023 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD,. 25-04-2023 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD,. 25-04-2023 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 24-05-2023 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 11417/23 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD,. 11-04-2023 RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →