SREE NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST, vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6516/2019HC KeralaKLHC01016988201905 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had exercised its statutory remedy of filing an appeal and had also filed a stay petition. The Court reckoned that procedural fairness demands that the authorities should wait before taking further steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the 2nd respondent would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sree Narayana Educational and Cultural Trust, is a registered dealer under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed a stay petition. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala through a writ petition, alleging that the revenue authorities were initiating coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition. The writ petition was filed on March 5, 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities should defer coercive steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure and fairness) The assessee contended that they have availed the statutory remedy of appeal and filed a stay petition. They argued that coercive steps should not be taken before the stay petition is adjudicated by the appellate authority, as this would defeat the purpose of the appeal and the stay petition. The assessee relied on the principle of procedural fairness. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the deferral of coercive steps.

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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 6516 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: SREE NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST XVI/256, CHENTHRAPPINI, THRISSUR 680 687 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.C.V SUBASH. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.AJAY V.ANAND SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE, KOCHI 682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) POORNIMA BUILDINGS, MANORAMA JUNCTION PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036. SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6516 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Income Tax Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

WP(C).No. 6516 of 2019 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 19-12- 2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 27-02- 2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 04-03- 2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20-02-2019. sd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →