JOMY JACOB vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/26803/2022HC KeralaKLHC01056708202222 August 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P3). This consideration is to be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, provided Ext.P3 was received along with Ext.P2 appeal. Until such orders are passed on Ext.P3, all proceedings for the recovery of any amount due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) are to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the stay petition itself, nor did it rule on the validity of the 20% deposit condition imposed by the assessing authority. The primary focus was on ensuring the stay petition was properly considered by the appropriate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jomy Jacob, is aggrieved by an order of assessment (Ext.P1). He filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. Simultaneously, he filed a stay petition before the assessing authority, who imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the demand for a stay of further proceedings (Ext.P4). The petitioner contended that in similar cases, no condition was imposed for stay, and requiring a 20% deposit would cause prejudice. The department pointed out that the stay petition appeared to be filed before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi) and not the 2nd respondent. The petitioner clarified that Ext.P3 was intended for the 2nd respondent and uploaded with the appeal, with a mistaken address to the 3rd respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) should consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P3) filed along with the appeal (Ext.P2), despite a potential misdirection in addressing the application. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the stay petition (Ext.P3) was indeed filed before the 2nd respondent and uploaded with the appeal (Ext.P2). The only error was addressing it to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also contends that in similar matters, the Appellate Authority has not imposed any condition for stay, and requiring a 20% deposit would cause prejudice. Revenue's Contention: The department points out that the stay petition appears to have been filed before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi) and that no stay petition was filed before the 2nd respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

W.P(C) .26803/22 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 26803 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: JOMY JACOB AGED 44 YEARS VETTIKKATT MACHINGAL BUILDING, A.R. NAGAR GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KOLAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM , PIN - 676306 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI , PIN - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682036 4 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD-2, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676101 SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) .26803/22 2

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment the petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent – National Faceless Appeal Centre. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed a stay petition before the assessing authority, who has, by Ext.P4 order, imposed a condition on deposit of an amount equivalent to 20% of demand as a condition for stay of further proceedings.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in similar matters, the Appellate Authority has not imposed any condition and the petitioner will be put to great prejudice if he is required to deposit 20% of the amount demanded in Ext.P1, as a condition for stay.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department would point out that the stay petition appears to have been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi (the 3rd respondent) and the petitioner has not even filed any stay petition before the 2nd respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that Ext.P3 application was in fact filed before the 2nd respondent and the stay application has been uploaded along with the appeal filed before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that only mistake committed is that it was addressed to the 3rd respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for W.P(C) .26803/22 3 stay, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if the same has been received along with Ext.P2 appeal. Till such time as orders are passed, as above, on Ext.P3, the proceedings for recovery of any amount due under Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE okb/ //// P.S. to Judge

W.P(C) .26803/22 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26803/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DTD. 31-03- 2022 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21-05-2022 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFOPRE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD,. 10-06-2022 Exhibit P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 15-07-2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →