M/S. SAJEEV MATHEW & COMPANY vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/40224/2022HC KeralaKLHC01087276202214 December 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). This consideration must be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and the order is to be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any steps for the recovery of amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay petition. The principle established is that High Courts can intervene to ensure timely consideration of stay applications by appellate authorities, and can grant interim relief by staying recovery proceedings pending the decision on such applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Sajeev Mathew & Company, received an order of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, along with an application for a stay of the demand. The petitioner apprehended that recovery proceedings might be initiated for the amounts due under the assessment order while the stay petition was pending before the first appellate authority. The case came before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of a stay application filed before the appellate authority, pending the appeal itself? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps might be taken to recover amounts due under the assessment order, pending the consideration of their stay petition by the first appellate authority. They sought a direction to prevent such recovery actions until the stay petition is decided. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

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 GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 40224 OF 2022 PETITIONER: M/S. SAJEEV MATHEW & COMPANY CHERUMATTATHIL PLAZA, ARAKKUZHA ROAD JUNCTION, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SAJEEV MATHEW , PIN - 686661 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI , PIN - 110001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). , PIN - 110001 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, ALUVA RANGE, K.A.P. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, R.S. ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 683101 OTHER PRESENT: ADV. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P. (C) No. 40224 of 2022 ..2.. JUDGMENT Dated this the 14th day of December, 2022 The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 application for stay before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner apprehends that the steps may be taken to recover amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment, pending consideration of the stay petition by the first Appellate Authority. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel also. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the limited nature of the relief sought for by the petitioner, this Writ Petition will stand disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 application for stay filed in Ext.P2 appeal, after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two months from the date W.P. (C) No. 40224 of 2022 ..3..

of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

5.

Till such time as orders are passed on Exts.P3 stay petition, any steps for recovery of amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE RMV

W.P. (C) No. 40224 of 2022 ..4.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40224/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DTD. 02-06-2022 Exhibit P2 COPYOF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTGD. 23-02-2022 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23-02-2022 Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.17- 11-2021 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NILP.A.TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →