EDAKKALATHUR DEVASSY DAIZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/17770/2023HC KeralaKLHC01038645202305 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if the second respondent proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the enforcement letter (Ext.P4) were to stand deferred. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on the procedural aspect of disposing of the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Edakkalathur Devassy Daiz, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously. The petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings pursuant to an assessment order (Ext.P1) until his stay petition was decided. The petitioner contended that despite the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the respondents were threatening to enforce the assessment order, as evidenced by a letter (Ext.P4). The respondents were represented by their counsel. The High Court noted that the stay petition had been pending since May 15, 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the National Faceless Appeal Centre to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal and stay petition, and pending such decision, stay further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order (Ext.P1) was under challenge through an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) filed before the second respondent. Despite the pendency of these, the respondents were threatening to enforce the assessment order, necessitating the writ petition for a direction to dispose of the pending applications and to stay enforcement proceedings. The petitioner relied on the fact that the stay petition had been pending since May 15, 2023. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that Sri. Jose Joseph appeared for the respondents, 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 MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 17770 OF 2023 PETITIONER: EDAKKALATHUR DEVASSY DAIZ AGED 58 YEARS EDAKKALATHUR HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)., PIN - 110001 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 17770 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 5th day of June, 2023

JUDGMENT 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 stay further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order.

The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, he has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the second respondent. Despite the pendency of Exts.P2 and P3, the respondents are threatening to enforce Ext.P1 assessment order as evidenced by Ext.P4 letter. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the counsel appearing for the respondents.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 stay

WP(C) NO. 17770 OF 2023 3 petition is pending consideration before the second respondent since 15.5.2023, 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 the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention, 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 Exts.P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 and P4 shall stand deferred. rmm5/6/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 17770 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17770/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 29-11-2019 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21-12- 2019 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 15-05-2023 Exhibit P4 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR REALIZATION OF ARREARS DTD 19-05-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →