THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/29060/2022HC KeralaKLHC01061506202206 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 by the appellate authority. 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) in accordance with law within a period of two months. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any coercive proceedings shall be deferred until the disposal of the stay petition (Ext.P4). The core principle established is that appellate remedies, including stay petitions, should be allowed to be pursued without the threat of immediate coercive action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thomas George 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. He had preferred an appeal and a stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III. The petitioner sought a direction for the deferral of coercive proceedings until his stay petition was considered. The respondents were the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle.

What were the issues?

1. Whether coercive proceedings should be deferred pending the consideration of the petitioner's stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, as a statutory appeal is pending. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that since a statutory appeal and a stay petition were pending before the appellate authority, coercive steps should be put on hold. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the deferral of coercive proceedings.

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. 29060 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. 29060 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT AGED 60 YEARS S/O MATHEW M THOMAS, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M G ROAD ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016 BY ADVS. G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) AKHIL SURESH ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR ATHUL M.V. 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) 29060/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2020-21 DATED 30.03.2022. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.04.2022. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.07.2022. Exhibit P5 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →