SREEVALSAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6378/2019HC KeralaKLHC01016449201905 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had availed its statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition within the prescribed time. The court observed that procedural fairness dictates that revenue authorities should await the decision of the appellate authority on the stay petition before initiating coercive steps. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the stay petition. The court also expressed hope for an expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the appellate authority. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sreevalsam Educational 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 petitioner sought a direction to defer coercive steps until the stay petition was considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appellate proceedings by directing the revenue to defer coercive steps. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps were being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority had an opportunity to decide on the stay petition filed by the petitioner. This action, according to the petitioner, was causing prejudice and undermining the statutory appellate remedy. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The learned Government Pleader appeared before the court.

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. 6378 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: SREEVALSAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST THEKKEMADOM BUILDING, THEKKEMADOM ROAD TRICUR-680001, (PRESENTLY AT. SREEVALSAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, NADUVATTAM KOLOLAMBA-P.O, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-679576, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI RAJAN ACHUTHAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE, KOCHI-682018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III 28/243, POORINIMA, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. 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. 6378 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. 6378 of 2019 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 25.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 25.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION U/S.220(6) DATED 25.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. DCT(E)AAKTS 1191G/2018-19 DATED 20.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) KOCHI. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY F REPLY DATED 27.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)KOCHI. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, VIDE F NO.404/10/2009-ITCC DATED 1.12.2009. sd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →