NARAYANAN DUDHACHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/29776/2021HC KeralaKLHC01073605202121 December 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The court found that this direction would adequately address the petitioner's apprehension of immediate coercive action pending the disposal of his stay application. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer facing potential coercive recovery should have their stay application considered expeditiously to prevent undue hardship, and coercive measures should be halted pending such consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narayanan Dudhachan, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. He has filed an appeal before the second respondent (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) and a petition for stay of proceedings (Ext.P2(a)). The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before his stay petition is considered. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the consideration of his stay petition. The respondents include the Income Tax Officer and two Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious consideration of his stay petition filed before the appellate authority, given his apprehension of coercive proceedings? (Question of procedural fairness and administrative efficiency) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that coercive proceedings may be initiated against him before his application for stay of the assessment order is considered, causing him prejudice. He seeks a direction for the timely disposal of the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The court proceeded to pass a direction after considering the submissions of both parties.

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. 29776 OF 2021 PETITIONER: NARAYANAN DUDHACHAN VATHERIPARAMBIL VEEDU, CHERAI P.O, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683514 BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 2(4) AND TDS, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI 682 005 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI 110 001 BY ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, 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.29776/21 -:2:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29776 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2021

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2017-18, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second 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.P2(a). Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition.

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.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2(a) 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 initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

W.P.(C) No.29776/21

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29776/2021 PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2A COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF RECTIFICATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →