M/S. KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/18175/2023HC KeralaKLHC01039549202307 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (ITAT) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P4) expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court also stipulated that if a conditional order of stay is proposed, reasons must be provided. Furthermore, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) were deferred until an order was passed on the stay petition. The appeal itself was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to expeditiously consider and dispose of their appeal and stay petition. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an assessment order (Ext P1) and a stay petition (Ext P4) before the ITAT on April 27, 2023. The petitioner apprehended enforcement of the assessment order before the stay petition was considered. The ITAT is the second respondent, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is the first respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should be directed to expeditiously consider and dispose of the pending appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure/administrative direction). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that their appeal and stay petition have been pending before the ITAT since April 27, 2023, and they are apprehensive about the enforcement of the assessment order. They sought a direction for expeditious disposal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the learned standing counsel, appeared before the court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 18175 OF 2023
TC/32/20

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18175 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S. KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD, TC/32/204/1, SITARAM MILL ROAD, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SEETHARAM T.K, PIN – 680002 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001 2 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I & C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682037 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.18175/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 7th day of June,2023

J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext P3 appeal and Ext P4 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time, to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 assessment order.

2.

The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext P3 appeal and Ext P4 stay petition before the second respondent on 27.04.2023. The stay petition has not been considered till date. However, the petitioner is apprehensive that the respondents may enforce Ext P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext P4 stay petition is pending consideration before the second respondent since 27.04.2023, 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 P4 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 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 P4 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 assessment order shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/07.06.23 //// P.A.To Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DTD. 12-07- 2021 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, KOCHI DTD. 28-03- 2023 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 27-04-2023 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 08-05-2023 RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →