THIROOR KURIES PRIVATYE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/21062/2023HC KeralaKLHC01046091202303 July 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This consideration must be after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court further stipulated that if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be stated. Crucially, until orders are passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall stand deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thiroor Kuries Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to expeditiously consider and dispose of its appeal and stay petition. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the first respondent, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, on April 1, 2023. Along with the appeal, a stay petition (Ext.P3) was also filed. The petitioner's concern was that the assessment order might be enforced while the stay petition was pending. The respondents were represented by their counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the pending stay petition expeditiously? (Question of procedure/administrative direction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that its appeal and stay petition were filed on April 1, 2023, and the stay petition remained pending. The petitioner apprehended enforcement of the assessment order during the pendency of the stay petition and therefore sought a direction for expeditious disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the judgment.

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 MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2023 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 21062 OF 2023 PETITIONER: THIROOR KURIES PRIVATYE LIMITED THIROOR, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, TRICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.K R RAMACHANDRAN, PIN - 680581 BY ADV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER ASSESSNEBT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACLESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21062 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2023

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

The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent on 1.4.2023. Along with Ext.P2 appeal, the petitioner has also filed Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner’s apprehension is that during the pendency of the stay petition, respondents may enforce Ext.P1 order. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri. Alan Priyadarshi Dev, the learned

WP(C) NO. 21062 OF 2023 3 counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

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 1.4.2023, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:- (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) If the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P3, all WP(C) NO. 21062 OF 2023 4 further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall stand deferred. rmm3/7/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 21062 OF 2023 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21062/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 13.03.2023 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPYOF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 01.04.2023 EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 01..04.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →