ANILKUMAR. K.K. vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/27801/2023HC KeralaKLHC01060921202322 August 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if a conditional order of stay is proposed, reasons must be provided. Furthermore, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expediting the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anilkumar K.K., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to expeditiously consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner had filed the appeal on April 30, 2022, against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the first respondent, the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. A stay petition was subsequently filed on July 20, 2022. The petitioner's apprehension was that the respondents might enforce the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the disposal of the pending appeal and stay petition filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/administrative direction). The petitioner argued that his appeal and stay petition have been pending for an extended period, causing him apprehension of coercive action based on the assessment order. He sought an expeditious disposal. The revenue, represented by its counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the prayer for expeditious disposal of the pending appeal and stay petition.

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 C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27801 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ANILKUMAR. K.K. AGED 51 YEARS KAILAS, THIKKODI PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673529 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 27801 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2023

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and P3 stay petition, expeditiously.

2.

The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent on 30.4.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 stay petition on 20.7.2022. The petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of Exts.P2 and P3, the respondents may enforce Ext.P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri. Harishankar V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the WP(C) NO. 27801 OF 2023 3 respondents.

4.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 stay petition is pending consideration before the second respondent since 20.7.2022, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the same, immediately. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:- (i) The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention, if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same.

WP(C) NO. 27801 OF 2023 4 (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall stand deferred. rmm22/8/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 27801 OF 2023 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27801/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 29-03-2022 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 30-04- 2022 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-07-2022 Exhibit P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 11417/23 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 11-04-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →