VELAPPAN VISWANATHAN, vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9432/2024HC KeralaKLHC01089774202412 March 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the limited nature of the plea, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all proceedings for the recovery of amounts due in terms of the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall remain suspended until orders are passed on the stay petition (Ext.P3). The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural relief sought regarding the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Velappan Viswanathan, proprietor of M/s. Sree Radhakrishna Rice Mill, is challenging an order of assessment (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. He has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The petitioner's sole request in this writ petition is for a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and decide the stay petition (Ext.P3) after providing a hearing to the petitioner. Pending the decision on the stay petition, the petitioner seeks a suspension of any recovery proceedings initiated based on the assessment order (Ext.P1). The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious consideration and disposal of his stay petition by the appellate authority, with an opportunity of hearing, pending the appeal against the assessment order? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Velappan Viswanathan, argued that he has filed an appeal against the assessment order and a stay petition. He seeks a direction for the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petition after affording him a hearing. He also seeks a suspension of recovery proceedings until the stay petition is decided. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Department was heard. No specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding the revenue's stance on the stay petition or the writ petition itself, other than their presence and being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 9432 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: VELAPPAN VISWANATHAN, AGED 57 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. SREE RADHAKRISHNA RICE MILL, NALLEPILLY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678553 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON PARVATHY MENON PADMANATHAN K.V. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 OTHER PRESENT: P.R. AJITH KUMAR -SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-2- W.P.(C) No. 9432 of 2024 JUDGMENT Petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 application for stay before the 2nd respondent. The only limited relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to suspend recovery of any amounts due in terms of Ext.P1, pending consideration of Ext.P3 stay petition. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Department also. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department and considering the limited nature of plea sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such time the orders are

-3- W.P.(C) No. 9432 of 2024 passed in Ext.P3, any proceedings for recovery of amount due in terms of Ext.P1 shall remain suspended. sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE das

-4- W.P.(C) No. 9432 of 2024 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9432/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDFENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DTD. 01-02-2024 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28-02- 2024 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28-02-2024 Exhibit P4 COPY OF PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 17-02-2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →