MUHAMMED ALI P.P., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/16876/2024HC KeralaKLHC01104332202403 May 2024Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3. The Tribunal directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Exts.P7 to P9) within a period of two months from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P3) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay petitions. The appeals themselves were not decided on merits, but the interim relief of staying recovery was granted pending disposal of stay petitions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muhammed Ali P.P., is facing assessment proceedings for assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, resulting in assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P3). He filed appeals (Exts.P4 to P6) and stay petitions (Exts.P7 to P9) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 (3rd respondent). These appeals and stay petitions are pending. The petitioner's grievance is that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) is initiating recovery proceedings for the demands raised in the assessment orders, despite the appeals being undecided. The petitioner's limited prayer is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the pending appeals and stay petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3) should be directed to consider and dispose of the pending appeals (Exts.P4 to P6) and stay petitions (Exts.P7 to P9) filed by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery proceedings are being initiated while his appeals and stay petitions are pending before the appellate authority. He seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of these pending matters. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the direction sought by the petitioner. The revenue was represented by their Standing Counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 16876 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MUHAMMED ALI P.P., AGED 64 YEARS, A-11A BENZEER MANZIL, KUTTOOR POST AR NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 305 BY ADVS. P.RAGHUNATHAN PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RISHAL.K SAIJESH A. RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001 2 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS]-3, C.R BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 018 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.16876 of 2024 ..2.. J U D G M E N T The Income Tax Department has initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Thereafter, Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders were passed. Challenging Exts.P1 to P3, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has also moved Exts.P7 to P9 stay petitions. Exts.P4 to P6 and P7 to P9 are pending before the 3rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in the meanwhile, the 1st respondent is initiating steps for recovery of demand as per the demand notices in Exts.P1 to P3 orders. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to give a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P4 to P6 appeals and Exts.P7 to P9 stay petitions. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Exts.P7 to P9 stay petitions and pass orders within a period of two months from today. Till then,

W.P.(C)No.16876 of 2024 ..3.. the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the amount confirmed against him by Exts.P1 to P3 orders shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE PR

W.P.(C)No.16876 of 2024 ..4.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16876/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit- P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C FOR AY 2011.12 DT 02.03.2024 Exhibit-P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C FOR AY 2012.13 DT 02.03.2024 Exhibit-P3 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C FOR AY 2012.13 DT 02.03.2024 Exhibit-P4 APPEALS- FORM 35 AGAINST EXT.P-1 TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) Exhibit-P5 APPEALS- FORM 35 AGAINST EXT.P-2 TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) Exhibit-P6 APPEALS- FORM 35 AGAINST EXT.P-3 TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) Exhibit-P7 APPLICATION FOR STAY TO EXT-P1 DTD 08.04.2024 Exhibit-P8 APPLICATION FOR STAY TO EXT-P2 DTD 08.04.2024 Exhibit-P9 APPLICATION FOR STAY TO EXT-P3 DTD 08.04.2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →