PRECIOUS HOMES AND PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/18968/2023HC KeralaKLHC01041316202312 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, 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. The Court also noted that if a conditional order of stay is proposed, reasons must be stated. Crucially, until orders are passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P1) and the subsequent communications (Exts.P4 and P6) were ordered to stand deferred. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Precious Homes and Projects India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to expeditiously consider and dispose of their appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner had filed the appeal on April 25, 2023, against an assessment order (Ext.P1). During the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (3rd respondent) issued communications (Exts.P4 and P6) threatening to enforce the demand raised in Ext.P1. The petitioner sought to defer further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice and communications until the stay petition was decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition expeditiously and that further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P1) and subsequent communications (Exts.P4 and P6) should be deferred until the stay petition is decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that Sri. Jose Joseph appeared for the respondents, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

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 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18968 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: PRECIOUS HOMES AND PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ST. LOUIS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, THRISSUR CHURCH CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680 001, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. JOE LOUIS, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU AADITYA NAIR ANJANA A. RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 18968 OF 2023 2

JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, expeditiously, and until such time to defer further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 demand notice and P6 communication.

2.

The petitioner's case is that aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent on 25.04.2023. During the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the 3rd respondent has issued Exts.P4 and P6 communications, threatening to enforce Ext.P1 demand. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri.Anil D.Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the 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 2nd respondent, I

WP(C) NO. 18968 OF 2023 3 deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as follows: (i) The 2nd 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 this judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention that, if the 2nd respondent proposes to pass any conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1, P4 and P6 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/12.06.23

WP(C) NO. 18968 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18968/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2023 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL IN FORM 35 DATED 25.04.2023 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.05.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 27.05.2023 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 07.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →