MAVILA CHATHOTH RAMACHANDRAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/18745/2019HC KeralaKLHC01048034201910 July 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the 2nd respondent (appellate authority) to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3). The Court was satisfied that the writ petition could be disposed of based on the limited prayer. Accordingly, the appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed expeditious disposal of the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mavila Chathoth Ramachandran, an advocate and notary, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. He also filed a stay petition (Ext.P3) along with the appeal. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition. The petitioner's concern was that the delay in deciding the stay petition would lead the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings, potentially rendering the appeal infructuous or ineffective. The High Court perused the documents and found a prima facie case for issuing directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the assessee pending appeal? Assessee's Contentions: - Mere filing of an appeal or its pendency does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, which could make the statutory appeal academic or ineffective. - The law mandates that orders on stay petitions should be passed expeditiously to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay in disposing of the stay petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 25(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.18745 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: MAVILA CHATHOTH RAMACHANDRAN AGED 57 YEARS ADVOCATE AND NOTARY, 'ABHIRAMI', 7TH MILE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.C.T.SUJA SRI. PAUL JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT - 673 001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX AAYKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT - 673 001. SC SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C) NO.18745 OF 2019 -2- JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P3 stay petition results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2 appeal. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in

W.P(C) NO.18745 OF 2019 -3- the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the order on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Ext.P1 assessment order, Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext. P3 stay petition. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The appellate authority/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 stay petition applications as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or

W.P(C) NO.18745 OF 2019 -4- recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS

W.P(C) NO.18745 OF 2019 -5- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.11.2017 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE AY 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2014-15.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →