PULIKKAL MEDICAL FOUNDATION vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/17463/2023HC KeralaKLHC01037978202331 May 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within 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 a conditional order of stay was proposed, the reasons for it must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 (the impugned order) and Ext.P5 were to be deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pulikkal Medical Foundation, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to expeditiously consider and dispose of its appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner had filed these before the 2nd respondent on April 27, 2023, aggrieved by an order (Ext.P1). Despite the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the respondents were proposing to enforce the impugned order. The petitioner sought a deferment of coercive proceedings until the disposal of the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that its appeal and stay petition were filed on April 27, 2023, and the 2nd respondent had not yet considered them. They sought an expeditious disposal and a deferment of coercive proceedings until then. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that Sri. Christopher Abraham 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
WP(C) NO. 17463 OF 2023 1 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. 17463 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: PULIKKAL MEDICAL FOUNDATION AGED 63 YEARS MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL M.G ROAD, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. P.V. LOUIS., PIN - 682016 BY ADVS. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS V.ABRAHAM MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI., PIN - 682018 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL SCHEME, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE AYAKAR BHAVAN KOCHI., PIN - 682018 OTHER PRESENT: 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: WP(C) NO. 17463 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time to defer further coercive proceedings as against the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent on 27.4.2023. Despite the pendency of Exts.P2 and P3, the respondents are proposing to enforce Ext.P1 order. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned 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 2nd respondent since 27.4.2023, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the WP(C) NO. 17463 OF 2023 3 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 a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention that if the 2nd respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state the reason for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P5 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS, JUDGE okb/31.5.23

WP(C) NO. 17463 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17463/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 27.04.2023 AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 ORDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 27.04.2023 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.04.2023 MOVED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →