THOMAS MUTHOOT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/29118/2022HC KeralaKLHC01061625202206 September 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would be just and proper to defer coercive proceedings until the petitioner's stay petition is considered. The Court directed the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P4) within a period of two months. Coercive proceedings were explicitly ordered to be deferred until the disposal of the stay petition (Ext.P4). The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of ensuring the appellate authority addresses the stay application before any enforcement action is taken.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thomas Muthoot, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging a notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had preferred an appeal and a stay petition against this demand before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III. The writ petition sought a direction for the consideration of these pending appeals and stay petitions. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The procedural history involves the issuance of a demand notice, the filing of an appeal and stay petition, and the subsequent filing of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether coercive proceedings should be deferred until the petitioner's stay petition is considered by the appellate authority? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that coercive proceedings should be deferred pending the disposal of their appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific questions of law or fact the Tribunal had to decide, but the core issue revolved around the interim relief of deferring coercive action.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 29118 OF 2022
WP (C) NO.20772/2022

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUE AY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022/ 15TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 29118 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THOMAS MUTHOOT AGED 56 YEARS S/O MATHEW M THOMAS, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M G ROAD ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016 BY ADVS. G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) AKHIL SURESH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III POORNIMA, 28/243, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682036 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695003 SHRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..2.. JUDGMENT Dated this the 06th day of September, 2022 Against Ext.P1 notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

3.

As statutory appeal is pending, it will be only just and proper that coercive proceedings, if any, are deferred till stay petition of the petitioner is considered. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 petition shall be considered within a period of two months. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be deferred till the disposal of Ext.P4. N. NAGARESH, JUDGE skj ..3..

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29118/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2020-21 DATED 25.03.2022. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2022 Exhibit P3 A TINE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE LST RESPONDENT DATED 22.04.2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY TO THE 1st RESPONDENT DATED 21.07.2022. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO.20772/2022 DATED 27.06.2022 OF THIS COURT.

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →