NEW YEAR KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT,

WP(C)/15809/2023HC KeralaKLHC01034259202331 May 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 petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four 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) were to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, New Year Kuries Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The stay petition had been pending since April 1, 2023, without any action. The petitioner apprehended recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order and sought a direction to the respondents to refrain from proceeding with such recovery. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction was issued to the second respondent to dispose of the stay petition expeditiously.

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, in light of the apprehension of recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their stay petition, filed on April 1, 2023, before the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) had not been acted upon. They apprehended that recovery proceedings might be initiated based on the assessment order. Therefore, they sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's counsel. However, the court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

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 31ST DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 15809 OF 2023 PETITIONER: 1 NEW YEAR KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KUNNAMKULAM ROAD, KECHERY, TRICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI.MAMBARAMBIL MOHANAN PRASAD,, PIN - 680501 BY ADVS. ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 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: WPC No.15809 of 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023 The writ petition is filed interalia, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from proceeding with recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1

assessment order.

When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition, which is filed in Ext.P2 appeal, expeditiously.

The petitioner’s case is that, challenging Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the second respondent. Despite Ext.P3 stay petition pending consideration since 01.04.2023, the second respondent has not taken action on the same. The petitioner is apprehensive that the respondents may enforce Ext.P1 order. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri.Alan Priyadarshi Dev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 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 four 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, if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance. C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/31-05

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15809/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2022 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.01.2023 FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01.04.2023 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF STAY APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT DATED 27.01.2023 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →