JAYALEKSHMI LATHIKA KUMARI, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/10356/2024HC KeralaKLHC01091539202414 March 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that any demand arising from Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on Ext.P3. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the validity of Ext.P1. The reasoning was based on the facts and circumstances of the case, aiming to provide a procedural remedy pending the decision on the stay application. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court can direct expeditious disposal of a stay application and grant interim relief by staying recovery proceedings while the stay application is pending.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jayalekshmi Lathika Kumari, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order (Ext.P1). She has also filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and an application for stay (Ext.P3) of recovery proceedings. The petitioner seeks a direction for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay application and to keep any recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 in abeyance until a decision is made on the stay application. The Income Tax Department was represented by its Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the pending stay application (Ext.P3)? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) 2. Whether recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned order (Ext.P1) should be stayed until the stay application is decided? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's primary contention, as evident from the writ petition, is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to decide the stay application (Ext.P3) and that recovery should be postponed until then. No specific legal provisions or precedents were mentioned in the judgment regarding the assessee's arguments. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department was heard. No specific arguments or contentions were detailed for the revenue in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10356 OF 2024 PETITIONER: JAYALEKSHMI LATHIKA KUMARI, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.S.N.ANILKUMAR, SREYAS , AYANIKKAD NAGAR, PALKULANGARH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 024. BY ADVS. DIVYA RAVINDRAN LINCY GLANCY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(1), ROOM NO:A-104,1ST, AAYKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 695 003. 2 THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIN – 110 001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. SRI. P.R. AJITH KUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 10356 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with Ext.P3 application for stay. The only relief is sought for a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and to stay any proceedings for recovery of any amount determined under Ext.P1 till such time as orders are passed on the stay application. 2. Heard the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department also. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent) before which Ext.P3 application for stay is pending, to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3, any demand pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK

WP(C) NO. 10356 OF 2024 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10356/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT DATED 29.2.2024 FOR AY 2019-20-20 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 12.03.2024 FILED AGAINST THE EXT P1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2019-20 IN FORM 35 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2019-20 DATED 12.03.2024 FILED AGAINST THE DEMAND NOTICE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →