CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/24105/2022HC KeralaKLHC01050390202227 July 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kochi Bench, to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions filed by the petitioner (Exts.P8, P9 & P10) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The court further ordered that the demand raised pursuant to the assessment orders (Ext.P11) shall be kept in abeyance until such orders are passed by the Tribunal. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeals or the stay petitions themselves, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring timely consideration of the stay applications. The principle established is that courts may intervene to direct expeditious disposal of statutory remedies like stay petitions when there is a genuine apprehension of coercive action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, is aggrieved by assessment orders for assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2014-2015. He has filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kochi Bench, along with stay petitions. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before his stay petitions are considered. Consequently, he has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of his stay petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction for the disposal of stay petitions before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, when the petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that he is facing the threat of coercive recovery actions before his stay petitions are adjudicated by the ITAT, necessitating intervention by the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the stay petitions. The court proceeded to pass a direction based on the submissions of the petitioner's counsel and the respondents.

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 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 24105 OF 2022 PETITIONER: CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN AGED 58 YEARS CHENGAZHASSERIL, KEEZHAMPARA P.O., MELAMPARA, BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM , PIN - 686578 BY ADVS. ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS V.ABRAHAM MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002 2 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOCHI BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN BLOCK NO. C1 & C2,1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682037 SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.24105/2022 -2-

J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P3 orders of assessment relating to assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2014-2015, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P5, P6 & P7 appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi Bench. Petitions for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders have also been filed as Exts.P8, P9 & P10. The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petitions for stay are considered. Hence this writ petition.

Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8, P9 & P10 stay petitions, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such such orders are passed the demand (Ext.P11) shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG

W.P (C) No.24105/2022 -3-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24105/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2022 FOR AY 2011- 12 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOCHI Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.472/2022 DATED 04.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2011-12. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.473/2022 DATED 04.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2012-13. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.474/2022 DATED 04.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2014-15. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 04.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2011 -12 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 04.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2012-13 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 04.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2014-15 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 17.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →