M/S. S R TRADERS vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/19314/2023HC KeralaKLHC01042064202314 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's delay petition (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P4) 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. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court also noted that if the 2nd respondent intended to pass a conditional stay order, reasons for the same must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on the delay and stay petitions, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to stand deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. S R Traders, 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, Delhi, to expeditiously consider and dispose of their appeal (Ext.P2), delay petition (Ext.P3), and stay petition (Ext.P4). The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the 1st respondent, the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner apprehended that the respondents might enforce the assessment order while the delay and stay petitions were pending. The writ petition was filed on June 14, 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal, delay petition, and stay petition expeditiously, and if so, within what timeframe? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal, delay petition, and stay petition were pending before the 2nd respondent and that they apprehended enforcement of the assessment order during the pendency of these applications. They sought a direction for expeditious disposal and a deferment of further proceedings until a decision was made on the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, was heard. However, the specific contentions of the revenue 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 19314 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: M/S. S R TRADERS 13/500A NEAR MALABAR CRUSHER, MANNANNUR PALAKKAD , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SAFEEK.K., PIN - 679523 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR 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 SRI JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19314 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P2 appeal, P3 delay petition and P4 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time to defer further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order.

The petitioner's case is that aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal on 03.06.2023 along with Exts.P3 delay petition and P4 stay petition. The petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of Exts.P3 and P4, the respondents may enforce Ext.P1 order. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, the learned 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 Exts.P3 delay petition and P4 stay petition are pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose

WP(C) NO. 19314 OF 2023 3 of the writ petition as follows: (i) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4, 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, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention, if the 2nd respondent desires to consider Ext.P4 stay petition and pass any conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Exts.P3 and P4, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/14.06.23

WP(C) NO. 19314 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19314/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPYOF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2021-22 DTD. 22- 12-2022 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 03-06-2023 Exhibit P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 02-06-2023 Exhibit P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 02-06-2023 Exhibit P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 11417/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 11-04-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →