PULIKKAL MEDICAL FOUNDATION vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16872/2024HC KeralaKLHC01104319202427 May 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that all recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pulikkal Medical Foundation, a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, and also registered as a Charitable Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2017-2018. This order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS (1st respondent). A notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act was also issued. The petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). The petitioner's grievance is that coercive steps are being taken for recovery of the disputed tax while the appeal is pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of recovery proceedings pending the disposal of their appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that coercive steps are being taken to recover the disputed tax while their statutory appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent. They seek a deferral of recovery until the appeal is decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay petition or the recovery steps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 25,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 16872 OF 2024 PETITIONER: PULIKKAL MEDICAL FOUNDATION MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL M.G ROAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. P.V. LOUIS, PIN – 682 016. BY ADVS. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA JOHN VITHAYATHIL AIBEL MATHEW SIBY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL SCHEME, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE AYYAKKAR BHAVAN KOCHI, PIN – 682 018. SRI. P.G. JAYASHANKAR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.16872 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is also registered as a Charitable Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). Ext.P1 is the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-2018 passed by the 1st respondent. Ext.P1(a) is the notice of demand issued to the petitioner under Section 156 of the Act. Challenging Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition, before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending the appeal, coercive steps are being taken to recover the disputed tax. 2. Since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date

WP(C).No.16872 OF 2024 3 of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on the stay petition, all recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be deferred. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR

WP(C).No.16872 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER’

S EXHIBITS

:- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P1 (A) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ON DEMAND DATED 31.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 30.08.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 30.08.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED

01.09.2023

FILED

THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ANNEXURES). EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER DATED 17.01.2024

ISSUED

THE

1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 01.09.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.01.2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →