KADAVIL VALAPPIL MUHAMED LAISE, vs. THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2644/2022HC KeralaKLHC01005931202227 January 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while considering the writ petition, directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court further ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The reasoning is based on the apprehension of coercive action before the stay petition is adjudicated. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer filing a stay petition should be protected from coercive measures until the stay petition is decided, provided it is considered within a reasonable timeframe. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kadavil Valappil Muhamed Laise, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2018-19. He has filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which is the second respondent. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed. 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 to the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration and disposal of his stay petition before coercive proceedings are initiated against him. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that he has filed an appeal and a stay petition and apprehends coercive action before the stay petition is decided. He seeks a direction from the court to ensure his stay petition is considered promptly. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue's actions were subject to the outcome of 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 7TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 2644 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: KADAVIL VALAPPIL MUHAMED LAISE, AGED 43 YEARS KADAVIL VALAPPIL, AYALAKKAD, POMALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM 679 576. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD -2, TIRUR 676 101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. OTHER PRESENT: ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHA-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No.2644 of 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2644 of 2022 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2022

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2018-19, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd 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 ExtP3. 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 of with a direction.

3.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, 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 Dxy

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2644/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DTD. 28.09.2021. Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 06.11.2021. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 06.11.2021. Exhibit P4 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 19.1.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →