REJI KRISHNAN, vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

WP(C)/16131/2024HC KeralaKLHC01102600202419 April 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided not to delve into the merits of the assessment or the appeals. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition before the ITAT. The Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (4th respondent) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P6) within a period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner concerning the assessment order (Ext.P1), the order of the Additional Commissioner (Ext.P3), and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) (Ext.P4) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The High Court did not decide on the substantive issues of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Reji Krishnan, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted partial relief. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Simultaneously, a stay petition was filed before the ITAT. The petitioner apprehended coercive proceedings before the stay petition could be considered, leading to the filing of this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies of appeal are available and pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that coercive proceedings were being apprehended before the consideration of his stay petition by the ITAT, necessitating intervention by the High Court to prevent irreparable harm. The petitioner relied on the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked to prevent injustice. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not explicitly record any arguments against the maintainability of the writ petition or the petitioner's claim for interim relief. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the issues.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 16131 OF 2024

TC4/14

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 MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 16131 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: REJI KRISHNAN,AGED 49 YEARS S/O KRISHNANKUTTY,TC4/1458(1), KRISHNAKRIPA, CVRA C-9, KURAVANKONAM, KOWADIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 BY ADVS. K.P.PRADEEP T.T.BIJU T.THASMI M.J.ANOOPA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK , NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 110001 2 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 4 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, FIRST FLOOR, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 682037 BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT P.R.AJITH KUMAR P.G.JAYASHANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 16131 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2018-19, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The First Appellate Authority disposed the appeal by Ext.P4, granting partial reliefs to the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred a second appeal before 4th respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P6. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence, this writ petition.

Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 stay petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner in respect of Ext.P1, P3 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance.

WP(C) NO. 16131 OF 2024 3

The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 16131 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16131/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 08- 03-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THROUGH THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT SCHEME Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 24-3-2021 FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 8-3-2021 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 6-3- 2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEALS WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 11-03-2024 FILED AND PENDING BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 16-4- 2024 WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO 491 OF 2024 DATED 05-04-2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →