SHRI.JACOB PULICKAL GEORGE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/765/2022HC KeralaKLHC01001960202211 January 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, decided to dispose 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 delay condonation petition (Ext.P2(b)) and the stay petition (Ext.P2(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 be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The ratio decidendi is that while statutory remedies are preferred, the High Court can intervene to ensure timely consideration of interim relief applications and to prevent undue hardship through coercive measures pending such consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Jacob Pulickal George, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18. He filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal and a petition for stay of proceedings. The petitioner apprehended coercive proceedings before his stay petition could be considered. Consequently, he filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking appropriate directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies are available, specifically concerning the pendency of an appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings before his stay petition is considered, necessitating intervention by the High Court. The petitioner relies on the principle that extraordinary remedies can be invoked to prevent injustice or irreparable harm. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case. The revenue's counsel appeared before the court.

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 TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 765 OF 2022 PETITIONER: SHRI.JACOB PULICKAL GEORGE 1 PULICKAL HOUSE, POONJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686581. BY ADVS. T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) V.P.NARAYANAN NISHA JOHN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 1ST FLOOR, KOTTAYAM PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI-110003. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 765 OF 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 765 of 2022 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext. P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2017-18, petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent, along with Ext.P2(b) petition for condoning delay in filing Ext.P2 appeal. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P2(a). 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.P.2(b) delay

WP(C) NO. 765 OF 2022 3 condonation petition as well as Ext.P2(a) 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 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

WP(C) NO. 765 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 765/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2019 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 31.12.2019. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 14.2.20 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2(a) STAY PETITION DATED 14.2.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DATED 14.2.2020. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →