SUMA CHAKKUNNATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6033/2019HC KeralaKLHC01015681201928 February 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 her statutory remedy on time by filing an appeal and a stay petition. The Court found that procedural fairness requires the revenue authorities to 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the stay petition would be disposed of expeditiously. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The issue of the merits of the assessment order was not decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suma Chakkunnath, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenged an assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), the first respondent. She filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent, and also a stay petition. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala through a writ petition, alleging that coercive steps were being taken by the revenue authorities before the appellate authority could decide on her stay petition. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities can initiate coercive steps against an assessee when an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the appellate authority? (Question of law and procedure) The petitioner argued that she had availed her statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition. She contended that procedural fairness dictates that coercive steps should be deferred until the appellate authority adjudicates on the stay petition. The revenue's arguments are not recorded 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 6033 of 2019 PETITIONER: SUMA CHAKKUNNATH, AGED 50 YEARS 01, GOPIKAS, VENGANELLUR, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-680 586. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), ERNAKULAM - 682 018. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES, STANDING COUNSEL SRI. JOSE JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 6033 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assesee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 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 his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.

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

3.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he 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.

4.

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 SKA

3 WP(C).No. 6033 of 2019

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 30.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 24.1.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →