M/S. EMKE COLLECTIONS vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER.

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/18134/2023HC KeralaKLHC01039429202306 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed respondents 2/3 to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously and in accordance with law, within three months of receiving 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 was proposed, reasons must be provided. Crucially, the Court ordered that until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) would stand deferred. The primary principle applied is the expeditious disposal of pending statutory remedies and the grant of interim relief to maintain the status quo pending such disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. EMKE COLLECTIONS, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and National Faceless Appeal Centre) to expeditiously consider and dispose of their pending appeal (Ext P2) and stay petition (Ext P3). The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext P1) and apprehended enforcement of this order while their stay petition was pending. The petitioner sought a stay on further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order until the disposal of the stay petition. The High Court heard both the petitioner's counsel and the respondents' standing counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents 2/3 should be directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously and in accordance with law, and until such disposal, whether further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) should be stayed? (Question of procedure and interim relief). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal and stay petition were pending before the appellate authority and apprehended enforcement of the assessment order. They sought expeditious disposal of the stay petition and a stay on further proceedings until then. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

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. 18134 OF 2023 PETITIONERS: M/S. EMKE COLLECTIONS KANDAM LANE, POST OFFICE ROAD, NEAR MUNICIPAL STAND, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,SHANAVAS., PIN – 680001 BY ADVS. 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 E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001 3 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)., PIN – 110001 SHRI.JOSE JOSEPH 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.18134/2023 -: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 respondents 2/3 to consider and dispose of Ext P2 appeal and Ext P3 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time, to stay further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 assessment order.

2.

The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext P2 appeal before the second respondent. Later, the petitioner has preferred Ext P3 stay petition, which is pending consideration before the second respondent. However, the petitioner is apprehensive that the respondents will enforce Ext P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, 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 second respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: (i) The respondents 2/3 are 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 respondents 2/3 propose to pass a conditional order of stay, they shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 assessment order 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. 19-04- 2021 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 03-05-2021 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. NIL EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP (C) 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 →