MUNDAMPRA MOHAMMED FAEZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/40229/2023HC KeralaKLHC01090315202301 December 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there were no grounds to stay the demand determined by the Assessing Authority pending consideration of the appeal before the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority. The Court stated that it would not entertain the writ petition parallel to the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent. The Court found parallel proceedings in the High Court while the appeal and stay application are pending before the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority to be not maintainable. Therefore, the prayer for staying the demand as determined by Exhibit P-1 order was rejected. However, the 2nd respondent was directed to proceed with the appeal and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year. The stay application was directed to be decided within a period of two months. With these directions, the writ petition was finally disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mundampra Mohammed Faez, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, to expeditiously dispose of his appeal (Exhibit P2) and stay petition (Exhibit P3). The petitioner also sought a stay of further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 order, which was passed by the Assessing Authority (1st respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax). The writ petition was filed because the appeal and stay petition were pending before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should grant a stay of the demand determined by the Assessing Authority pending consideration of the appeal before the Appellate Authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a stay of further proceedings pursuant to the Assessing Officer's order (Exhibit P1) pending the disposal of his appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue in the judgment. The court's decision implies that the revenue's position, as represented by the Assessing Officer's order, was not to grant a stay at this stage.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 40229 OF 2023 PETITIONER: MUNDAMPRA MOHAMMED FAEZ, MPB MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, AREEKODE P. O., MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 673639. BY ADVS. SRI. ANIL D. NAIR SMT. TELMA RAJU SMT. AADITYA NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEX BUILDING, MANANCHIRA KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 40229 OF 2023 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.40229 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2023

JUDGMENT

1.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs; (a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exhibit P2 appeal and Exhibit P3 stay petition as expeditiously as possible. (b) Pending hearing and final disposal of Exhibit P3 stay petition this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 order. (c) To issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2.

This Court finds no ground to stay the demand as has been determined by the Assessing Authority pending consideration of appeal before the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority. This Court would not like to entertain the writ petition parallel to the WP(C) NO. 40229 OF 2023 3 appeal pending before the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority. The parallel proceedings in the High Court while the appeal and stay application are pending before the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority are not maintainable. Therefore, the prayer for staying the demand as has been determined by Exhibit P-1 order is rejected. The 2nd respondent is however directed to proceed with the appeal and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. The stay application should be decided within a period of two months. With the above direction, the present writ petition is hereby finally disposed of. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn

WP(C) NO. 40229 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40229/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.03.2022 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 23.04.2022 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR FILING Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE A.Y. 2016-17 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUE LETTER DATED 17.11.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →