THAYYIL BALAKRISHNAN PRADEEP vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19809/2022HC KeralaKLHC01040678202220 June 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, upon considering the submissions of both the petitioner and the respondents, decided that the writ petition could be disposed of with a specific direction. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer should not face coercive recovery actions before their application for a stay of demand is adjudicated upon, thereby ensuring a fair process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thayyil Balakrishnan Pradeep, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2014-2015, marked as Ext.P1. He has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent), as per Ext.P2, and a petition for stay of proceedings under the assessment order, marked as Ext.P3. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before his stay petition is considered. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking intervention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of his stay petition before coercive proceedings are initiated, given the pendency of his appeal against the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that coercive proceedings should be held in abeyance until his stay petition, filed along with the appeal, is considered and disposed of by the respondent authority. He seeks the High Court's intervention to prevent immediate recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue would be bound by the court's order regarding the stay petition and coercive proceedings.

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. MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 19809 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THAYYIL BALAKRISHNAN PRADEEP AGED 55 YEARS THAYYIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, PALISSERI, THRISSUR - 680 027. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. OTHER PRESENT: GP : ADV.JASMIN M M ; SC-ADV.JOSE JOSEPH SC : ADV.DR.THUSHARA JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.19809/2022 -:2:-

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2014-2015, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence, this writ petition.

2.

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 with a direction.

3.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. ats

JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.19809/2022

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19809/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →