K.D. VIJAY HARI, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16878/2023HC KeralaKLHC01036705202329 May 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously, within two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. If a conditional stay order was proposed, the reasons for it were to be stated. Furthermore, all further proceedings pursuant to the penalty order (Ext.P1) and the demand notice (Ext.P2) were to be kept in abeyance until an order was passed on the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K.D. Vijay Hari, proprietor of Lord Krishna House, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, to expeditiously consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P4). The petitioner had filed an appeal against a penalty order (Ext.P1) and a stay petition on May 15, 2023, which remained unattended. The petitioner also contended that the respondents were threatening to proceed with a demand notice (Ext.P2). The writ petition was filed to prevent further action on the demand notice until the appeal and stay petition were decided.

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 appeal and stay petition filed by the petitioner. (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) The petitioner argued that his appeal and stay petition were pending before the second respondent and that the respondents were threatening to proceed with the demand notice, necessitating judicial intervention. The revenue, represented by Sri. Jose Joseph, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for expeditious disposal but was present and heard.

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 29TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16878 OF 2023 PETITIONER: K.D. VIJAY HARI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O KOZHIPARAMBIL DAMODARAN PROPRIETOR, LORD KRISHNA HOUSE. SOUTH AMMAN KOVIL, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR,, RESIDING AT KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR EVANUR TEMPLE, PERINGAVU, CHEROR P.O., THRISSUR-680008, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR ANTONY JONES RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), RANGE-2,AYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 OTHER PRESENT: BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (S.C) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16878 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 29th day of May, 2023

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition, expeditiously.

2.

The petitioner’s case is that, challenging Ext.P1 penalty order, he has preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition before the second respondent. Although Ext.P4 stay petition was filed on 15.5.2023, the same is lying unattended. The respondents are threatening to proceed with Ext.P2 demand notice. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard;Sri. N.Muraleedharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, the counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Having considered the fact that Exts.P3 appeal and P4 stay petition are pending, and the respondents

WP(C) NO. 16878 OF 2023 3 are proposing to proceed with Ext.P2 demand notice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:- (i) The second respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P4 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) If the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state the reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P4 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 shall be kept in abeyance. rmm29/5/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 16878 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16878/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2018- 19 DATED 21.03.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.04.2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.05.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →