MOHANACHANDRAN KODIYATT RAGHAVAN PILLAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/13611/2019HC KeralaKLHC01033678201910 May 2019Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed respondents 2 and 3 (the Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up, consider, and pass appropriate orders on the stay applications (Exts.P3 and P6) filed in connection with the appeals (Exts.P2 and P5). The petitioner was to be heard before such orders were passed. The court specified that these orders should be passed within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that coercive steps against the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment orders, would be kept in abeyance until orders were passed on the stay applications. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders or the appeals themselves.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohanachandran Kodiyatt Raghavan Pillai, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P4) and seeking consideration of his appeals (Exts.P2 and P5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner also submitted stay petitions (Exts.P3 and P6) along with his appeals. The petitioner's grievance was that despite filing appeals and stay petitions, demands were being made based on the assessment orders. The respondents included various income tax authorities, including the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should consider the stay petitions filed by the petitioner along with his appeals before proceeding with the demand based on the assessment orders? (Question of procedure and administrative fairness) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the authorities were demanding tax based on assessment orders even though appeals and stay petitions had been filed. The petitioner sought consideration of these stay applications. Revenue's contention: The standing counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the merits of the stay petitions or the appeals.

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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 20TH VAISAKHA, 1941 WP(C).No. 13611 of 2019 PETITIONER: MOHANACHANDRAN KODIYATT RAGHAVAN PILLAI AGED 50 YEARS MAKARAI, ARUKALIKAL WEST, ADOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 523. BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR SRI.K.AMAL NATH NAIK SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR SRI.RENOY VINCENT RESPONDENTS: 1 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I S PRESS ROAD, KACHIERIPADY, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOCHI, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 4 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KOLLAM RANGE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. 5 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE CENTRAL, KOLLAM. SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM- STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- WP(C).No. 13611 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P1 and P4 assessment orders and seeking consideration of Exts.P2 and P5 appeals. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that Exts.P3 and P6 petition for stay have also been moved. However, while considering the appeal all the applications for stay, demand is being made on the strength of assessment orders.

Having heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents as well, I am of the opinion that Exts.P3 and P6 applications for stay on Exts.P2 and P5 appeals are to be considered in accordance with law.

There will accordingly be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P3 and P6 applications for stay preferred in Exts.P2 and P5 appeals after hearing the petitioner. Orders shall be passed

-3- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed as directed above. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

-4-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2016 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED FORM NO.35 OBTAINED ON E- FILING OF THE APPEAL FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2017 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED FROM NO.35 OBTAINED ON E- FILING OF THE APPEAL FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF VARIOUS COMMUNICATINS SHOWING THE ADJUSTMENT OF REFUND TO OUTSTANDING DEMANDS FOR AY 2015-2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →