M/S. KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LIMITED, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/41601/2023HC KeralaKLHC01093133202313 December 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the delay petition (Ext P4) expeditiously, within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. If the delay is condoned, the second respondent is then to simultaneously consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P3), also after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court also noted that if a conditional stay order is proposed, reasons must be provided. Crucially, until orders are passed on the delay and stay petitions, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) are to be deferred. The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but rather focused on procedural directions for the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext P1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. To challenge this order, the petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext P2), a stay petition (Ext P3), and a delay condonation petition (Ext P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the second respondent). The petitioner apprehended that the respondents might enforce the assessment order while these applications were pending. Therefore, the writ petition sought a direction for the second respondent to dispose of the pending appeal, stay, and delay petitions within a specified time and to defer further proceedings under the assessment order until then.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal, stay petition, and delay petition within a stipulated time frame, and until such disposal, defer further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order? (Question of procedure and administrative direction) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that Exts P2, P3, and P4 were pending before the second respondent. They were apprehensive that the respondents might enforce Ext P1 assessment order during the pendency of these applications. Therefore, they sought a direction for expeditious disposal and a stay on further proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that Sri C. Ajith Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, was heard. However, the specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 41601 OF 2023
TC/32/20

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 41601 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S. KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LIMITED, TC/32/204/1, SITARAM MILL ROAD, PUNKUNNAM, THRISUUR - 680 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SEETHARAM T.K., PIN – 680002 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI C.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.41601/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2023

J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext P2 appeal, Ext P3 stay petition and Ext P4 delay petition, within a time period to be fixed by this Court and until such time, to defer further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 assessment order. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext P2 appeal, Ext P3 stay petition and Ext P4 delay petition before the second respondent. The petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of Exts P2 to P4, the respondents may enforce Ext P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. Ajith

W.P.(C)No.41601/2023 -:3:- Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Exts P2 to P4 are pending consideration before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext P4 delay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) If the second respondent condones the delay, he shall also simultaneously consider and dispose of Ext P3 stay petition, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

W.P.(C)No.41601/2023 -:4:- (iii) Needless to mention, if the second respondent proposes to pass any conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iv) Until such time orders are passed on Exts P3 & P4, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 assessment order shall stand deferred. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/13.12.23 //True copy// P.A. To Judge

W.P.(C)No.41601/2023 -:5:- APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 30-06-2022 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 03-11-2023 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 03-11-2023 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 03-11-2023 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →