M/S FACTUM GRANITES PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that since the appeal (Ext.P5) and stay petition (Ext.P6) are pending before the respondent, a decision thereon should be taken within a time limit. The Court found that the fact that an amount higher than that demanded in Ext.P4 has already been seized from the petitioner is a significant reason to grant a temporary stay on recovery proceedings. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P6) within one month from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 are to be kept in abeyance. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal itself.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s Factum Granites Pvt Ltd, is aggrieved by assessment order Ext.P4 for assessment year 2021-2022. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P5) and a stay petition (Ext.P6) before the respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's grievance is that recovery proceedings are being pursued despite Rs.13,20,000/- already being seized from them, as per Ex.P8 seizure inventory. The petitioner also relies on a previous High Court judgment (Ext.P10) in similar circumstances. The High Court noted that the seized amount is higher than the amount demanded in Ext.P4.
What were the issues?
1. Whether recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order Ext.P4 should be stayed pending the decision on the stay petition Ext.P6. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should be stayed because a substantial amount (Rs.13,20,000/-) has already been seized, which is higher than the amount demanded. They also placed reliance on a previous High Court judgment in similar circumstances. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent was heard.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: M/S FACTUM GRANITES PVT LTD, BUILDING NO.18/65, MARAKKAAVU,BLOCK NO.35, ERIMAYUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SAJI K.ALIAS,AGED 51, S/O.ALIAS, CHENNOTH KUZHIKANDATHIL, THIRUVANIYOOR. P.O., PIN - 678546 BY ADVS. DINESH R.SHENOY VISHAKHA J. RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD,COCHIN., PIN - 682018 NAVANEETH. S. NAIR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the Ext.P4 assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 2021-2022, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 appeal and Ext.P6 stay petition, which is now pending before the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 is being pursued, despite the fact that an amount of Rs.13,20,000/- has already been seized from the petitioner as per Ex.P8 seizure inventory. The learned counsel is also placing reliance upon Ext.P10 judgment passed by this Court in similar circumstances. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that, since Ext.P5 appeal and P6 stay petition are pending consideration before the respondent, it is only proper that a decision thereon be taken on the same within a time limit. The fact that an amount which is higher than the amount is demanded as per Ext.P4 is already
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2024 3 seized from the petitioner is also yet another reason, which prompts this Court to stay the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the time being. In such circumstances, it is ordered that the respondent shall take up Ext.P6 stay petition and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a decision is taken, the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE msp
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16572/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/5/2023 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSE THERETO ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/6/2021 ISSUED BY M/S. ABY P.B. & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DATED 12/6/2023 AND THE RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THERETO ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 DATED 27/6/2023. Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL DATED 25/7/2023, TOGETHER WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IT DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25/7/2023. Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATE 31/3/2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESEE'S COPY OF INVENTORY OF THE CASH SEIZED DATED 5/1/2022, ISSUED BY THE IT DEPARTMENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 18/4/204 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOCHI. Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 9/4/2024 IN W.P.(C)NO. 14760/2024, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026