L.RAJENDRAN, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),

WP(C)/250/2022HC KeralaKLHC01000673202206 January 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, decided to dispose of the writ petition with a direction. The Court directed the competent appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P8) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appellate authority was also granted liberty to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner if circumstances warranted. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken by the appellate authority on the stay petition. The principle established is that a High Court can direct an appellate authority to expedite the disposal of a stay petition and protect the assessee from coercive action pending such disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, L. Rajendran, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12. He has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent, and a petition for stay of proceedings. The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings before his stay petition is considered. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the timely disposal of his stay petition and appeal. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious consideration of his stay petition and appeal by the appellate authority? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has filed an appeal and a stay petition and apprehends coercive proceedings before the stay petition is considered. Therefore, a direction is necessary to protect his interests. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the submissions of the counsel for the respondents were considered, but does not detail specific arguments made by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: L.RAJENDRAN, AGED 68 YEARS SON OF LAKSHMANA PANIKAR, RESIDING AT MEDIYAL VEEDU, ULOOR, VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035. BY ADVS. N.KRISHNA PRASAD P.SHANES METHAR DEEPAK VARUGHESE MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), (III), KOCHI, APPEAL AUTHORITY SECOND FLOOR, SAN JUAN TOWERS, KOCHI 682 018. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYKAR, BHAVAN, PEROORKADA ROAD, KOWDIAR, POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. OTHER PRESENT: ADV. JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ======================== W.P.(C)No.250 of 2022 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2022

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2011-12, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P8. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is 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 competent appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellate authority will also be at liberty to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, if circumstances

WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022 3 so warrants. Till such a decision is taken by the appellate authority, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE jm/

WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 250/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ASSESSMENT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 07.12.2017. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 07.12.2017. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 367/COCH/2017 DATED 17.12.2018. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.12.2021. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.12.2021. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.12.2021. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 03.01.2022 FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES MENTIONED THEREIN.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →