THE PULLUVILA FISHERMEN DEVELOPMENT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/11985/2019HC KeralaKLHC01030133201912 April 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered a status quo regarding recovery for eight weeks from the date of the judgment. The principle derived is that courts can direct quasi-judicial authorities to dispose of pending applications expeditiously, especially when there is a prayer for interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pulluvila Fishermen Development Co-operative Society Ltd, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction to the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to expeditiously consider and dispose of Ext.P6, which is a stay petition. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Income Tax Officer. The writ petition was filed on April 12, 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the assessee. The petitioner argued for an expeditious disposal of their stay petition. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in this regard 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 S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 11985 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: THE PULLUVILA FISHERMEN DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, FT-28, PULUVILA P.O, THIRVANANTHAPURAM - 695 562, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADVS. SRI.N.ANAND N.KRISHNAPRASAD RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 2 THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -2, 1 FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), 1 FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 SC,CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11985 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT Heard Sri.N.Krishnaprasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel.

2.

The petitioner prays for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 stay petition expeditiously.

3.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be status quo as regards the recovery for eight weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Ac

WP(C).No. 11985 of 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RERSPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ASSESSING OFFICER. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF FORM ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ODATED 17.1.2019. EXHIBIT P4OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. EXHIBIT P5OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.3.2019 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6OF THE STAY PETITION MOVED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →