ASHA JOSEPH, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/26157/2023HC KeralaKLHC01057381202310 August 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging that Exts.P2 and P6 were pending before the 3rd respondent, deemed it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a fresh stay petition before the 1st respondent within one week of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court ordered that if the petitioner complied with this direction, the 1st respondent would transmit the stay petition to the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent was directed to consider the stay petition in accordance with law and expeditiously, at least within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court also stipulated that if the 3rd respondent proposed to pass any conditional interim order of stay, reasons must be provided. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, and provided the petitioner complied with the directions, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders and Ext.P5 were to stand deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself but facilitated the process for consideration of the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Asha Joseph, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), to consider her appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner also sought to defer further proceedings pursuant to a recovery notice (Ext.P5) issued by the 1st respondent, the Income Tax Officer, until her appeal and a related stay application (Ext.P6) were decided. The petitioner was apprehensive that the assessment order might be enforced through the recovery notice while her appeal and stay application were pending. The respondents, represented by their counsel, contended that the petitioner's claim of not being able to file a stay petition due to a missing link was incorrect, and it was her responsibility to file the stay petition along with the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)) should be directed to consider the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and stay application (Ext.P6). 2. Whether further proceedings pursuant to the recovery notice (Ext.P5) should be deferred until the appeal and stay application are decided. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that she had filed an appeal against the assessment order and a stay application, but was concerned about the enforcement of the assessment order through a recovery notice while these were pending. She sought a direction for the appellate authority to consider her pending applications and to defer recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that the petitioner's assertion about being unable to file a stay petition due to a technical issue was incorrect. They stated that it was the petitioner's responsibility to file the stay petition along with the appeal, and that the 1st respondent would transmit any such petition to the 3rd respondent.

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 THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: ASHA JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS D/O. GEORGE DANIEL, RESIDING AT PALAKKATHARAYIL HOUSE, SEETHATHOD, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689667 BY ADVS. M.S.AMAL DHARSAN NOEL JACOB RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101 2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), ROOM NO. 245-A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, inter-alia, to direct the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal and until such time to defer further proceeding pursuant to Ext.P5 recovery notice.

2.

The petitioner's case is that aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P5 recovery notice, against which the petitioner has also filed Ext.P6 stay application. Now, the petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of the Exts.P2 and P6, the respondents may enforce the assessment orders through Ext.P5 notice. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri.M.S.Amal Dharsan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Sri.Jose Joseph, on instructions, submitted that WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2023 3 the contention of the petitioner that he was unable to file the stay petition as the link was not provided is incorrect. It is upto the petitioner to file the stay petition along with the appeal. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to file stay petition before the 1st respondent, who in turn would transmit the same to the 3rd respondent.

5.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Exts.P2 and P6 are pending consideration before the 3rd respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file stay petition before the 1st respondent, who in turn would transmit the same to the 3rd respondent, to be considered in accordance with law. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) It would be upto the petitioner to file stay petition in the above appeal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment by filing the stay petition before the 1st respondent.

WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2023 4 (ii) If the petitioner files the stay petition before the 1st respondent within the stipulated time period, the 1st respondent shall transmit the same to the 3rd respondent. (iii) If the petitioner complies with the directions mentioned above and 1st respondent transmits the same to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent shall consider the stay petition filed in the above appeal, 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 this judgment. (iv) If the 3rd respondent proposes to pass any conditional interim order of stay, it shall state reasons for the same. (v) Until such time, orders are passed on the proposed stay petition, provided the petitioner does the same within the period fixed by this Court, all further proceedings

WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2023 5 pursuant to the assessment orders and Ext.P5 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/10.08.23

WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2023 6

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26157/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/03/2022 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015- 16 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 . TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 06/04/2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31/07/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 01/08/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 07/08/2023 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →