SUBASH KESAVAN KANDAM KULANGARA vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16399/2023HC KeralaKLHC01035579202324 May 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The 2nd respondent (NFAC) was directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This consideration must include hearing the petitioner and affording them an opportunity to be heard. The Court further directed that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent on the stay petition must be a reasoned one, addressing the petitioner's contentions regarding the existence of a prima facie case for granting a stay pending the appeal's disposal. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Subash Kesavan Kandam Kulangara, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (the 2nd respondent), to expeditiously consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (the 1st respondent). The petitioner contended that the stay petition has been pending since April 14, 2023. The High Court heard arguments from both the petitioner and the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and if so, within what timeframe? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that his stay petition (Ext.P3) has been pending before the 2nd respondent since April 14, 2023, and sought a direction for its expeditious disposal. The petitioner also prayed that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the respondents was heard, but it does not specify any particular contentions raised by the revenue.

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 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16399 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SUBASH KESAVAN KANDAM KULANGARA AGED 56 YEARS S/O. LATE K.E. KESAVAN, KANDAM KULANGARA HOUSE, THANAV, OLAVAKKOD P.O., PALAKKAD - 678002 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 OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI- 110001 , REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16399 OF 2023 2 C.S.DIAS, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16399 of 2023 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

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. The petitioner's case is that against Ext.P1 assessment order made by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner prays that both Exts.P2 and P3 may be considered and disposed of within a time frame. Hence, this writ petition.

2.

Heard Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondents. On considering the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 petition is WP(C) NO. 16399 OF 2023 3 pending consideration before the 2nd respondent since 14.04.2023, I am inclined to allow the original petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i) The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on Ext.P3 stay petition. (iii) The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent shall be a reasoned one, and after adverting to the contentions of the petitioner regarding the existence of a prima facie case where stay of recovery can be granted pending disposal of the appeal. C.S.DIAS JUDGE LEK

WP(C) NO. 16399 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16399/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DTD. 16-03-2023 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14-04-2023 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14-04-2023

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →