PRAMOD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16824/2023HC KeralaKLHC01036567202326 May 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, and noting that the appeal (Ext.P4) and delay petition (Ext.P5) were already pending, deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents to provide the link to the petitioner to upload the stay petition (Ext.P7). The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions: (i) The respondents must provide the link for uploading Ext.P7. (ii) The respondents must consider and dispose of Ext.P5 and Ext.P7 expeditiously and in accordance with law. (iii) Further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and demand notice (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on Exts.P5 and P7. The ratio decidendi is that procedural access to filing necessary applications for relief, such as a stay petition, should not be obstructed, and pending applications should be considered promptly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pramod, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the respondents to provide a link for uploading a stay petition (Ext.P7). The petitioner had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P4) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a delay petition (Ext.P5). Due to a perceived threat of the assessment order being implemented, the petitioner intended to file a stay petition. However, the respondents were allegedly not providing the necessary link for uploading this petition. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the National Faceless Appellate Authority, and the Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to provide a link to the petitioner for uploading a stay petition (Ext.P7) in connection with an appeal (Ext.P4) and delay petition (Ext.P5) that are pending consideration. The petitioner argued that a link was necessary to file the stay petition to prevent the implementation of the assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner contended that the respondents were not providing this link, necessitating the writ petition. The judgment records that the petitioner's counsel was heard. The revenue's counsel was also heard, but their specific arguments or reliance on any authorities, circulars, or precedents are not recorded in the judgment.

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 FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16824 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: PRAMOD AGED 38 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN NAIR, 381-14/373, THIRUVATHIRA KANNANKODE-1, PACHAKKAD, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695561 BY ADVS. M.HEMALATHA A.RAHIM RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695003 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPELLATE AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT F REVENUE, (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES),ROOM NO. 245- A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAC, PIN - 110001 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 1, (1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KOWDIAR-P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 695003 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16824 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to provide the link to the petitioner to upload Ext.P7 stay petition that is proposed to be filed in Ext.P4 appeal.

2.

The petitioner's case is that challenging Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has already filed Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P5 delay petition. Now as there is a threat of implementation of Ext.P1 order, the petitioner proposes to file Ext.P7 stay petition. However, the respondents are not providing the link to the petitioner to upload Ext.P7 stay petition. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Smt.M.Hemalatha, 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 Exts.P4 and WP(C) NO. 16824 OF 2023 3 P5 are already pending consideration, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to provide the link to the petitioner to upload Ext.P7 stay petition. Resultantly, I dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: (i) The respondents shall provide the link to the petitioner to upload Ext.P7 stay petition. (ii) The respondents shall consider and dispose of Ext.P5 delay petition along with Ext.P7 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Exts.P5 and P7, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance.

C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/26.05.23

WP(C) NO. 16824 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16824/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-03-2022 Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24-03-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR 2014- 2015 DATED 24-03-2022 Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 14-09-2022 BEFORE THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI. Exhibit-P5 THE AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. 35 DOWNLOADED FROM THE TAX DEPARTMENT PORTAL AFTER COMPLETION OF E-FILING Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15-09-2022 Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-01- 2023 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 03-02-2023 IN W. P.(C) NO. 3584 OF 2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →