MADHAVAN NAIR, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6126/2019HC KeralaKLHC01015635201928 February 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that procedural fairness requires the revenue authorities to wait before taking further steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had exercised his statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition in a timely manner. Therefore, the Court directed the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 1st respondent (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 or assessment year was mentioned. The judgment does not address the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, only the procedural aspect of coercive steps.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Madhavan Nair, an assessee, challenged an assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Aluva, before the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Cochin. The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with his appeal. Alleging that coercive steps were being taken by the revenue authorities before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition, the petitioner filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities can initiate coercive steps against the assessee before the appellate authority has decided on the stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of law and procedure) The petitioner argued that procedural fairness dictates that coercive steps should be deferred until the appellate authority has had an opportunity to consider the stay petition. The revenue's contentions 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. 6126 of 2019 PETITIONER: MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 73 YEARS KOZHAMBALLY HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.THOMAS SMT.BLOSSOM MATHEW SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ALUVA-683 101. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM. 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. 6126 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the rolls of the 2nd respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 1st 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 and the learned Standing counsel.

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 1st respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 1st respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE SKA

3 WP(C).No. 6126 of 2019

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTING TO PAY RS.23,42,090/-. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY RS.23,42,090/- DATED 10.12.2018. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DIRECTING TO PAY 20% OF THE NET DEMAND OF RS.23,42,090/- ON OR BEFORE 20.02.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX DATED 21.02.2019 FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →