SAJITHA.K.S. vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/38549/2022HC KeralaKLHC01083213202230 November 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P4) within the shortest possible time, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Pending the decision on the stay petition, any recovery proceedings for amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance. The Court clarified that orders on the stay petition should be passed on merits only if the 2nd respondent finds sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The issue of whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned was implicitly left to be decided by the 2nd respondent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sajitha K.S., proprietor of M/s. Krishna Motors, is challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) along with an application for condonation of delay (Ext.P3) and a stay application (Ext.P4) before the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The petitioner's apprehension is that recovery proceedings might be initiated to collect the amounts due under the assessment order before the delay condonation and stay applications are considered. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of these applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P4) expeditiously, and if so, what directions should be issued regarding recovery proceedings pending disposal of the stay application? The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings might be initiated before the appeal and stay applications are considered, causing prejudice. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for either side beyond the general hearing of the Standing Counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNE AY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 38549 OF 2022 PETITIONERS: 1 SAJITHA K.S. AGED 36 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. KRISHNA MOTORS, 3/842, SARAS TOWERS, OTTAPALAM ROAD, PARLI POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678612 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI,PIN - 110001 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKA , PIN - 678014 ADV. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 30th day of November, 2022 The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the year assessment year 2017-18 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 application for condonation of delay and Ext.P4 application for stay before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner apprehends that recovery proceedings may be initiated to recover amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment before Exts.P3 and P4 are considered by the 2nd respondent.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the limited nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition within the shortest possible time, after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P4, any proceedings to recover amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that orders need to be passed on merits on Ext.P4 stay petition only if the 2nd respondent finds sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. GOPINATH P. JUDGE SKP/30-11

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38549/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 22-03-2022 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-09-2022 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-09-2022 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-09-2022 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →