M/S. WE CONNECT AGENCIES vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERR

WP(C)/18607/2023HC KeralaKLHC01040483202308 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing specific directions to the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre). The Court directed the second respondent to consider and dispose of the delay petition (Ext.P3) and the stay petition (Ext.P4) 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 stipulated that if the second respondent proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on Exts.P3 and P4, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were directed to stand deferred. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. We Connect Agencies, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, along with a delay petition (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) on May 22, 2023. The petitioner contended that the respondents were threatening to enforce the assessment order during the pendency of their appeal and applications. Therefore, the writ petition sought directions for the expeditious disposal of the appeal and stay petitions and for a deferment of further proceedings under the assessment order until a decision was reached.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the National Faceless Appeal Centre to consider and dispose of the pending appeal, delay petition, and stay petition expeditiously, and until such disposal, defer further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that they had filed a statutory appeal, delay petition, and stay petition before the appellate authority. They contended that the respondents were threatening to enforce the assessment order while these applications were pending. Therefore, they sought judicial intervention to ensure the expeditious disposal of their pending applications and to prevent coercive action until a decision was made. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents. However, the specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THUR AY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18607 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S. WE CONNECT AGENCIES, KATTAPPANA P.O, IDDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, RATHEESH V.R, PIN – 685515 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERR NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI-, PIN – 110001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)., PIN - 110001 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 18607 OF 2023 JUDGMENT Dated this the 8th day of June 2023 The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, Ext.P3 delay petition and Ext.P4 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time, to defer all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent.

The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent along with Ext.P3 delay petition and Ext.P4 stay petition on 22.05.2023. During the pendency of the above appeal and the applications,

the respondents are threatening

to enforce

Ext.P1

assessment order. Hence, the writ petition.

WP(C) NO. 18607 OF 2023 3. Heard; Sri. Harisankar V Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already filed Ext.P2 statutory appeal before the second respondent, along with Ext.P3 delay petition and Ext.P4 stay petition, 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 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 that, if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay in Ext.P4 stay

WP(C) NO. 18607 OF 2023 petition, 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 jes

WP(C) NO. 18607 OF 2023

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DTD. 20-03-2023 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22-05-2023 Exhibit P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPOLNDENT DTD. 22-05-2023 Exhibit P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 22-05-2023 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →