SALEESH E.R vs. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASST.COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/13157/2022HC KeralaKLHC01026429202207 April 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction. The Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a)) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petitions. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the assessment orders or the appeals filed by the petitioner. The operative direction is solely to ensure the timely disposal of the stay applications and to provide interim protection against recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Saleesh E.R., is aggrieved by assessment orders for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, marked as Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a). He has filed appeals against these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, as Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a). Concurrently, the petitioner has filed stay petitions, Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a), seeking a stay of the assessment orders. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before his stay petitions are adjudicated. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the timely disposal of his stay petitions and to prevent coercive action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously consider and pass orders on the stay petitions filed by the petitioner, and to restrain coercive proceedings until such orders are passed? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that he faces imminent coercive proceedings for recovery of the demand raised in the assessment orders. He has filed appeals and stay petitions, but apprehends that recovery actions may be initiated before the stay petitions are decided. Therefore, a direction is sought to ensure that his stay petitions are considered promptly and that coercive measures are held in abeyance until a decision is rendered on the stays. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the counsel for the respondents (revenue) was heard. However, no specific arguments or contentions are detailed in the judgment regarding the revenue's stance on the stay petitions or the writ petition itself.

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 13157 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: SALEESH E.R AGED 43 YEARS ELLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ITHUPADAM, MATTATHUR KODAKARA, THRISSUR-680 692 BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR G.REMADEVI HARIMA HARIHARAN RAJATH R NATH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASST.COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001 OTHER PRESENT: JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ======================== W.P.(C)No.13157 of 2022 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a) orders of assessment relating to assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) appeals before the 2nd respondent. Petitions for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders have also been filed as Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a). Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petitions for stay are 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 of with a direction.

3.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) stay petitions, within a period of three 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. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE jm/

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13157/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 Exhibit P1(A) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 5.4.2022 AGAINST EXT P1 Exhibit P2(A) COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 5.4.2022 AGAINST EXT P1(A) Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.4.2022 IN EXT OP2 APPEAL Exhibit P4(A) COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.4.2022 IN EXT P29A) APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →