GLASSCO HARDWARES & PLYWOODS vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/20515/2022HC KeralaKLHC01042244202224 June 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner along with the appeal against Ext.P5 order of assessment. The Appellate Authority is to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the stay petition. Crucially, the Appellate Authority must consider the petitioner's contentions that the assessment order was passed without proper opportunity and without considering their reply. Until an order is passed on the stay petition, any recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P5 are to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glassco Hardwares & Plywoods, is challenging an order of assessment (Ext.P5). The petitioner has filed a statutory appeal against this order before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) along with an application for stay. The petitioner contends that the assessment order is illegal and arbitrary, issued without considering their reply. The department's counsel acknowledges the pending appeal and suggests directing the Appellate Authority to decide the stay petition. The High Court is considering the writ petition against the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order of assessment (Ext.P5) is illegal and arbitrary, having been passed without considering the petitioner's reply. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the assessment order is illegal and arbitrary because it was passed without considering the reply filed by them. They rely on the principle that assessment orders must be passed after due consideration of all submissions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledges that the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal and a stay petition. They submit that it is appropriate for the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petition.

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. FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20515 OF 2022 PETITIONER: GLASSCO HARDWARES & PLYWOODS, NARANIPUZHA ROAD, CHANGARAMKULAM, NANNAMUKKU POST, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679 575, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI SUJEESH K.V. BY ADVS. T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) V.P.NARAYANAN ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAYUR BHAVAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TIRUR- 676101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No.20515/2022 2

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P5 order of assessment, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent along with an application for stay.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P5 order of assessment is illegal and arbitrary and has been issued without considering the reply filed by the petitioner.

The learned Standing Counsel for the department submits that since the petitioner already filed a statutory appeal is only appropriate that a direction being issued to the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the department, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner along with the appeal filed against Ext.P5 order of assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority shall, while, deciding the stay petition advert to the contentions taken by the petitioner that Ext.P5 order of assessment was passed without giving him proper opportunity and without considering the reply submitted by him. Till such time orders have passed on the stay petition filed by the petitioner any recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ats

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20515/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.2.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.3.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 23.3.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS ACKNOWLEDGED ON 23.3.2022. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →