CHAKKUNNATH GOPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5661/2019HC KeralaKLHC01014760201926 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the Commissioner would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific amount in dispute or assessment year was mentioned. The issue of the merits of the assessment order was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chakkunnath Gopi, an assessee, filed an appeal against an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with his appeal. 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 the stay petition. The writ petition was filed on February 26, 2019.

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 procedural fairness dictates that coercive steps should be deferred until the appellate authority has adjudicated on 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 TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 5661 of 2019 PETITIONER: CHAKKUNNATH GOPI, AGED 56 YEARS, 01, GOPIKAS, VENGANELLUR, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-680 586. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), THRISSUR-680 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THRISSUR-680 001. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 5661 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee 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 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 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. 5661 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 27.12.2018. 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: //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →