M/S.SAFE DEVELOPMENT ALMS TRUST vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/21678/2019HC KeralaKLHC01055434201908 August 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, having perused the relevant documents (Ext. P1, P2, and P3), was satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (appellate authority). The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext. P3) as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, 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 on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Safe Development Alms Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of their stay petition. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the mere pendency of an appeal does not grant a stay and that delays in disposing of the stay petition could lead to recovery steps by the assessing officer, rendering the appeal ineffective. The petitioner argued that the law provides for prompt disposal of stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petition expeditiously, given the potential for coercive recovery steps by the assessing officer that could render the appeal academic or ineffective? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition allows the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings. - Such recovery actions can render the statutory appeal ineffective or academic. - The law mandates expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the appellant's interests. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A

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 THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.21678 OF 2019(H) PETITIONER: M/S.SAFE DEVELOPMENT ALMS TRUST 1, MELAMURI, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, P.V.MOHAMMED HARIF, AGED 51, S/O. P.V.HASSAN. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 036. BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.21678 OF 2019(H) 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 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 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. 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 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.

WP(C).No.21678 OF 2019(H) 3 3. Perused Ext. P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Ext.P3. 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/second respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 stay petition 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 recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. SD/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE DCS

WP(C).No.21678 OF 2019(H) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 27.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 26.1.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 10.7.2019.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →