KELATH PARAMBIL UMMER MUHAMMED SHAREEF vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/40684/2022HC KeralaKLHC01088249202216 December 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and the limited nature of the relief sought, disposed of the Writ Petition. It directed the National Faceless Appeal Centre to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for stay (Ext.P3) filed in his appeal (Ext.P2) as expeditiously as possible, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until such time as orders are passed on the stay petition, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the stay petition is heard before recovery is pursued.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kelath Parambil Ummer Muhammed Shareef, is challenging an order of assessment for the assessment year 2019-2020, issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. He filed an appeal along with a stay petition before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The petitioner's primary concern is that recovery proceedings might be initiated based on the assessment order while his stay petition is pending. Therefore, he approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to keep recovery steps in abeyance until his stay petition is considered and disposed of by the National Faceless Appeal Centre.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the National Faceless Appeal Centre to expeditiously consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P3) filed in his appeal (Ext.P2) against the assessment order (Ext.P1) for AY 2019-2020. 2. Whether recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the stay petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner apprehends that recovery steps may be taken before his stay petition is adjudicated by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and seeks a direction to prevent such recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard, but does not detail their specific arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 40684 OF 2022 PETITIONER: KELATH PARAMBIL UMMER MUHAMMED SHAREEF AGED 36 YEARS KELATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, KARAKKAD, KONDURKARA PO OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 303, PIN - 679303 BY ADVS. V.P.NARAYANAN ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001, PIN - 680001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM,DELHI, PIN - 110003 OTHER PRESENT: ADV. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..2.. JUDGMENT Dated this the 16th day of December, 2022 The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2019-2020 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P2 stay petition before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The petitioner apprehends that pending consideration of the stay petition by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, steps may be taken to recover amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment. He, therefore, prays that a direction may be issued pending consideration of the stay petition, any steps to recover amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel also.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the limited nature of the relief ..3.. sought for by the petitioner, this Writ Petition will stand disposed of directing the National Faceless Appeal Centre to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for stay filed in Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3 stay petition, any proceeding for recovery of amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE RMV ..4..

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40684/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27 SEPTEMBER 2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 26-10- 2022, FOR AY-2019-20 EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 25-10-2022, FOR AY- 2019-20 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →