M/S.PALAKKAD DISTRICT SALAFI EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/21828/2019HC KeralaKLHC01055792201909 August 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, per Justice S.V. Bhatti, was satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to dispose of the stay petition. The Court noted the limited prayer and the grounds raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay application (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 assessment or the stay petition itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Palakkad District Salafi Educational Association, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (the assessing officer) to consider and dispose of their stay petition expeditiously. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the mere pendency of an appeal does not grant a stay, and delay in deciding the stay petition could lead to recovery proceedings by the assessing officer, rendering the appeal ineffective. The petitioner sought timely disposal of the stay petition to protect their interests pending the 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, as prayed by the petitioner? (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 could result in coercive recovery steps by the assessing officer, making the statutory appeal academic or ineffective. - The law provides for the expeditious passing of orders on stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153C

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 FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.21828 OF 2019(C) PETITIONER/S: M/S.PALAKKAD DISTRICT SALAFI EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 14/229, P.M.A.COLLEGE, CAMPUS, PARALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY K.S.SHAMSUDHEEN, SECRETARY, AGED 48, S/O.SAYED. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. SC SRI JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.21828 OF 2019(C) -2- JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 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

WP(C).No.21828 OF 2019(C) -3- writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd 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/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 application 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 JS

WP(C).No.21828 OF 2019(C) -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. RESPONDENTS'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →