VIMALA HOSPITAL KALADY, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7528/2019HC KeralaKLHC01019069201918 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the stay petition (Ext.P4) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is decided. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application and the coercive actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vimala Hospital Kalady, is challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2016-17, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the first respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent, along with a stay petition. While the appeal and stay petition were pending, coercive recovery proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking intervention. The High Court of Kerala considered the matter on March 18, 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the appellate authority, especially when coercive proceedings have been initiated. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Vimala Hospital Kalady, is seeking a direction from the High Court to expedite the decision on its stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance until a decision is taken. The petitioner implicitly argues that the initiation of coercive proceedings necessitates judicial intervention. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue or the respondents. The court's direction suggests that the primary concern was the pending appeal and stay petition and the ongoing recovery actions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 7528 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: VIMALA HOSPITAL KALADY, KALADY, KANJOOR P.O, KANJOOR, PIN - 683 575, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR FATHER JOSEPH KANIYAMPARAMBIL BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), 2ND FLOOR, SANJUAN TOWERS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PANAMPILLI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018 BY GP THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7528 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner,

impugning

Ext.P2 assessment order for the assessment year 2016-17, passed by the 1st respondent under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P4 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, coercive proceedings have been initiated. It is in this context, the writ petition has been filed.

2.

In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, the recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned order in the appeal shall be kept in WP(C).No. 7528 of 2019 3 abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE SB/19/03/2019 JUDGE

WP(C).No. 7528 of 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THEOF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF E- PROCEEDINGS NO. 22101810584275 DATED 24.08.2018 EXHIBIT P2 THEOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-12-2018 U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT 1961 IMPOSING A HUGE DEMAND OF RS.98,09,815/- EXHIBIT P3 THEOF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE P2 ORDER EXHIBIT P4 THEOF STAY PETITION FILED IN THE P3 APPEALS RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →