M/S.POPULAR TRADERS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WA/967/2019HC KeralaKLHC01024617201901 April 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, finding no error, illegality, or impropriety in the learned Single Judge's judgment. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Court was inclined to enlarge the time stipulated for payment. The Court directed that if the appellant deposits the balance amount out of the first installment (as per the impugned judgment) on or before April 15, 2019, it would be considered due compliance. Upon such payment, the appellant would be permitted to remit the second installment within one month thereafter. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s. Popular Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an interim order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning a demand of `44,82,72,598/- for the assessment year 2016-2017. The CIT(Appeals) had granted a stay of recovery subject to the condition that the appellant pay 20% of the demand by March 15, 2019. The learned Single Judge modified this order, reducing the payment to 50% of the amount directed by the CIT(Appeals) and allowing payment in two installments. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal against the Single Judge's order. The appellant had already remitted `14,20,969/- on March 27, 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the interim order of the CIT(Appeals) regarding the conditions for stay of demand? Assessee's Contention: The appellant sought indulgence from the court to extend the period stipulated for payment of the amount. They submitted that 10% of the entire demand amounts to `4,48,27,260/- and that they had already remitted `14,20,969/-. They requested permission to pay the balance due in the first installment within a short time and to allow a further period of one month for the second installment. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department pointed out that the appellant had failed to comply with the direction contained in the judgment impugned, which was itself an indulgence shown by the learned Single Judge.

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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI MONDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 967 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7546/2019 of THIS COURT APPELLANT/PETITIONER: 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 RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, 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,IT DEPARTMENT- SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. No.967/2019 -:2:- C.K. ABDUL REHIM & R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No. 967 OF 2019 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2019

J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim

, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 7546/2019 is the appellant herein, challenging the judgment dated 15th March, 2019 dismissing the writ petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.

2.

Ext.P4 interim order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Kottayam was challenged in the writ petition. The order impugned was passed by the CIT (Appeals) in a stay petition filed by the appellant, seeking stay of recovery of the demand of `44,82,72,598/-, pending disposal of the appeal. The demand in question pertains to the assessment completed for the year 2016 - 2017, which was under challenge in the appeal. The CIT(Appeals) granted an interim stay, subject to conditions that the appellant shall pay 20% of the demand on or before 15.03.2019. In the writ petition, the said order was modified by the learned Single Judge. The condition stipulated was reduced to 50% of the amount directed in the order of the CIT(Appeals). The said amount was allowed to be paid in two installments on or before 31.03.2019 and within a period of one month thereafter. The CIT(Appeals) was also directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

3.

Even though various grounds were raised, we do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment warranting interference in this appeal. Hence the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought for indulgence of this court in extending the period stipulated for payment of the amount. It is submitted that 10% of the entire demand would come to `4,48,27,260/-. It is also submitted that the appellant had already remitted a sum of `14,20,969/- on 27.03.2019. Learned counsel seeks indulgence to permit the appellant to pay the balance due in the first instalment within a short time and to allow further period of one month for the payment of the second installment, as directed by the learned Single Judge.

4.

Heard; learned Standing Counsel for Government of India(Taxes), who pointed out that, the appellant had failed to comply with the direction contained in the judgment impugned, which itself was actually an indulgence shown by the learned Single Judge.

5.

On considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, while dismissing the writ appeal, we are inclined to enlarge the time stipulated for making payment of the amount stipulated. If the appellant deposits the balance amount out of the first instalment mentioned in the impugned judgment on or before 15.04.2019, the same will be considered as due compliance of the direction contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In case the balance amount out of the first instalment is paid on or before the said date, the appellant shall be permitted to remit the second instalment within one month thereafter. The above writ appeal is disposed of as above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE. ul/- [] P.S. to Judge.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →