ORALIUM LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/17951/2024HC KeralaKLHC01106061202422 May 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to dispose of the application for condonation of delay expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent is further directed to consider the stay application expeditiously. The entire exercise is to be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until such disposal, there will be a stay of recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order. The court acknowledged the existence of the statutory remedy of appeal as the primary recourse for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Oralium Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The assessment for the year 2022-2023 was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) on March 13, 2024. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). The appeal was filed with a delay of 11 days, for which an application for condonation of delay was submitted. A stay petition was also filed. The petitioner's grievance is that recovery steps are being taken pending the appeal. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the assessee has a statutory remedy of appeal, including an application for condonation of delay and a stay petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken pending the appeal and sought a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal. They relied on the existence of the statutory remedies (appeal, condonation of delay, stay) as the basis for their prayer. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the court notes that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 17951 OF 2024 PETITIONER: ORALIUM LIMITED FLAT NO. 237 ECSTASY BUSINESS PARK, JSD ROAD, MULUND WEST, MUMBAI CITY MUMBAI- MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.K.M.AHAMED ANSARI, PIN – 400 080. BY ADVS. ADITYA UNNIKRISHNAN PRIYADARSINI S. ANIL D. NAIR (SR.) BINISHA BABY RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (III) CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018. SMT. SUSIE B. VARGHESE - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.17951 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Assessee under the Income Tax Act. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 2022 - 2023 was completed by the 1st respondent on 13.03.2024 as per Ext.P1. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. There was a delay of 11 days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending the appeal, steps are being taken for recovery of tax and interest under Ext.P1. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, expeditiously. 2. The petitioner has got a statutory remedy of

WP(C).No.17951 OF 2024 3 appeal against Ext.P1 assessment order and the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 statutory appeal against Ext.P1 with an application to condone the delay. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay, expeditiously, and if the delay is condoned, to consider Ext.P3 application for stay, expeditiously, thereafter. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, there will be a stay of recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR

WP(C).No.17951 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER’

S EXHIBITS

:- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.03.2024. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO.35 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT,DATED 22/04/2024. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P2 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/04/2024. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/04/2024. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →