POPULAR TRADERS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/17927/2019HC KeralaKLHC01046006201902 July 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court appreciated the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the first respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, to consider Ext.P8 expeditiously. The Court did not delve into the merits of Ext.P8 itself, as the petition was primarily for a procedural direction. The ratio of the decision is that administrative authorities should consider representations expeditiously as per law, and courts may issue directions to that effect when appropriate, especially when the authority assures timely action. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Popular Traders, represented by its Managing Partner, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking expeditious consideration and disposal of Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is dated May 22, 2019. The petitioner did not provide any extraordinary reason for the timely disposal of Ext.P8. The respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla, were represented by their Standing Counsel. The Standing Counsel submitted that Ext.P8 would be considered as per law and the decision communicated to the petitioner. The Court appreciated the objection of the Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the expeditious consideration and disposal of Ext.P8 filed by the petitioner, M/s. Popular Traders? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought an order for expeditious consideration and disposal of Ext.P8. No specific arguments or legal provisions were cited by the petitioner in support of this request, other than the implicit need for timely administrative action. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that Ext.P8 would be considered in the manner the law provides for, on its own terms, and the decision would be communicated to the petitioner. No specific legal provisions were cited by the revenue, but they indicated adherence to due process.

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 S.V.BHATTI TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.17927 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: M/S.POPULAR TRADERS POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, THOMAS DANIEL (AGED 63). BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA-689101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3 THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA-689101. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH., GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 17927/2019 -2-

J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks expeditious consideration and disposal of Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is dated 22.05.2019 and no extraordinary reason is pointed out for timely disposal of Ext.P8. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that Ext.P8 would be considered in the manner the law provides for, on its own terms, and decision communicated to petitioner. The objection of the learned Standing Counsel is appreciated and the writ petition hence is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P8, as is required expeditiously. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE jjj

W.P.(C) No. 17927/2019 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 28.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2016-17 DATED 24.01.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2016-17 DATED 24.01.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.03.2019. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.7546/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.03.2019. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.967/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 01.04.2019. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF ORDER IN SLP (C) NO.9543/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.04.2019. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.05.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →