AMALGAM AQUACULTURE APPLICATIONS LTD., vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3264/2019HC KeralaKLHC01008634201904 June 2019Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the demand notices, having been issued without reference to the Ext.P1 judgment, could not survive. Consequently, Ext.P2 in WP(C) No. 3278 of 2019 and Ext.P3 in WP(C) No. 3264 of 2019 were set aside. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioners' applications for compounding, subject to their maintainability as per the directions in Ext.P1, within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment. The court reiterated that coercive proceedings against the petitioners would be deferred until the compounding applications were duly considered and disposed of, as previously directed in Ext.P1. The petitioners were instructed to furnish a copy of the judgment and writ petitions to the first respondent for compliance.

What were the facts?

These two writ petitions, WP(C) No. 3264 of 2019 and WP(C) No. 3278 of 2019, were filed by M/s Amalgam Aquaculture Applications Ltd. and M/s. Amalgam Nutrients and Feeds Ltd., respectively. The petitioners challenged demand notices (Ext.P3 in WP(C) No. 3264/2019 and Ext.P2 in WP(C) No. 3278/2019). The core of the petitions was to direct the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (the first respondent) to consider their compounding applications after providing a hearing. The petitioners contended that a previous judgment of the High Court (Ext.P1) had already directed the respondents to consider their compounding applications after notice and hearing, but the demand notices were issued without adhering to this direction. The respondents, through their standing counsel, submitted a statement acknowledging that demand notices were issued before the authority was made aware of Ext.P1 judgment. They assured that the issue would be reconsidered with notice and an opportunity for hearing to the petitioners.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand notices issued by the respondents are valid in light of the prior High Court direction to consider the petitioners' compounding applications after notice and hearing? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioners argued that the demand notices were issued in contravention of Ext.P1 judgment, which mandated consideration of their compounding applications after notice and hearing. - They sought a direction for the respondents to consider their compounding applications as per the previous court order. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondents stated that the demand notices were issued before Ext.P1 judgment was brought to the authority's notice. - They assured that in light of the directions in Ext.P1, the issue would be reconsidered with notice and hearing to the petitioners.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 3264 of 2019
WP(C).3278/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No. 3264 of 2019 PETITIONER: M/S AMALGAM AQUACULTURE APPLICATIONS LTD., AMALGAM HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682003, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX BHAVAN, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE RANGE-1, KOCHI, 5TH FLOOR, R.C. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).3278/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).Nos. 3264/2019 & 3278/2019 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No. 3278 of 2019 PETITIONER: M/S. AMALGAM NUTRIENTS AND FEEDS LTD., AMALGAM HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682003, REP. BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX BHAWAN, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE RANGE-1, KOCHI, 5TH FLOOR, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).3264/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).Nos. 3264/2019 & 3278/2019 3

JUDGMENT These writ petitions are filed challenging Ext.P2 in WP(C)No.3278 of 2019 and Ext.P3 in WP(C)No.3264 of 2019 seeking direction to the first respondent to consider the compounding application submitted by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner.

2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by Ext.P1 judgment, this Court has specifically directed the respondents to consider the compounding application submitted by the petitioner after notice and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the demand notices are issued without an order being passed in terms of Ext.P1 judgment.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

A statement has been placed on record on WP(C).Nos. 3264/2019 & 3278/2019 4 behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions stating that before Ext.P1 judgment was brought to the notice of the authority, action had already been initiated by issuing the demand notices. It is stated that in the light of the directions contained in Ext.P1, the issue will be reconsidered with notice to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner also.

5.

Having

considered

the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the demand notices which are issued without reference to Ext.P1 judgment cannot survive. Ext.P2 in WP(C)No.3278 of 2019 and Ext.P3 in WP(C)No.3264 of 2019 are accordingly set aside. The respondents shall consider the applications preferred by the petitioner

for compounding,

subject

to maintainability as directed in Ext.P1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, as directed in Ext.P1, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be deferred until the WP(C).Nos. 3264/2019 & 3278/2019 5 compounding applications are duly considered and disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petitions before the first respondent for compliance. Writ petitions are ordered accordingly. ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE ACM / 10/6/19

WP(C).Nos. 3264/2019 & 3278/2019 6

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3264/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.8.2018 PASSED IN WPC.24615 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.10.2018 PASSED IN WPC.28486/2018 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 1.1.2019 WP(C).Nos. 3264/2019 & 3278/2019 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3278/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.8.2018 PASSED IN WPC.NO.24615 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 1.1.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →