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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/29602/2021HC KeralaKLHC01073680202121 December 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 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. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1, referred to as Ext.P5 in the operative part) against the petitioner are to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of with this direction. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, as the focus was on procedural relief pending adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jacob Thomas, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-2019. He has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and a petition for stay of proceedings. The petitioner apprehends coercive action before his stay petition is considered. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition seeking relief. The respondents include various income tax authorities at the National E-Assessment Centre and a local Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of coercive proceedings pending the disposal of his 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 by the appellate authority. He seeks a direction to prevent such actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay petition or the writ petition itself. The court considered submissions from both sides.

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 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 29602 OF 2021 PETITIONER: JACOB THOMAS AGED 75 YEARS 1-MULAMOOTTIL, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689641. BY ADVS. JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) V.ABRAHAM MARKOS ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-1110001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110001. 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689641. 4 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110001. ADV.JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.29602/2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 29602 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2021

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext. P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2018-2019, 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 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 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 pursuant to Ext.P5 against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE rps/

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29602/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 25.03.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 17.12.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 17.12.2021 FROM THE WEBSITE PORTAL INCLUDING DISPUTING THE DEMAND. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →