KANNAMKUMARATH BALAKRISHNAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/17429/2023HC KeralaKLHC01037907202331 May 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court clarified that if a conditional order of stay was proposed, the reasons for it must be stated. Until the disposal of the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the letter for realization of arrears (Ext.P4) were to stand 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, Kannamkumarath Balakrishnan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to expeditiously dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner had filed the appeal against the assessment order (Ext.P1) on January 22, 2020. A stay petition (Ext.P3) was filed on May 15, 2023, due to threats of enforcement of the assessment order by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent). Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (3rd respondent) issued a letter to realize alleged arrears. The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent was not considering the stay petition, leading to the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously dispose of the pending stay petition filed by the assessee, considering the delay in its disposal. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the assessment order (Ext.P1) was appealed against on January 22, 2020. - A stay petition (Ext.P3) was filed on May 15, 2023, as the revenue authorities were threatening to enforce the assessment order. - The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not considered the stay petition, despite the lapse of time. - The issuance of a letter by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to realize alleged arrears further necessitated urgent consideration of the stay petition. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but does not detail specific arguments made by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2023/10TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO.17429 OF 2023 PETITIONER: KANNAMKUMARATH BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, 5/109, KANNAMKUMARATH HOUSE, PUDUSSERY, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR, PIN – 679531. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) &TPS, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated, this the 31st May, 2023 The writ petition is filed to direct 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time to defer all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 letter issued by the 3rd respondent.

The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent on 22.01.2020. When the 1st respondent was threatening to enforce Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 stay petition on 15.05.2023. But, the 2nd respondent is not considering Ext.P3 petition. Now, the 3rd respondent has issued a letter to realise the alleged arrears. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned - 3 - counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, 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 2nd respondent since 15.05.2023, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: (i) The 2nd 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 the certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) It is made clear that, if the 2nd respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for - 4 - the same. (iii) Until such time, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P4 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS,JUDGE ww - 5 -

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17429/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 20-12-2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.22-01- 2020. 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 ALLEGED ARREARS DTD. 19-05-2023. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 11417/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 11-04-2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →