CHEERAN JOSE SHUNSON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/25640/2021HC KeralaKLHC01064404202118 November 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the pendency of the appeal and the stay petition filed by the petitioner. Recognizing the petitioner's apprehension of coercive proceedings being initiated before the disposal of the stay petition, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition itself with a specific direction. The Tribunal directed the second respondent, the appellate authority, to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, 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 in cases where an assessee faces imminent coercive action while a stay petition is pending before the appellate authority, the High Court can direct the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and grant a temporary reprieve from coercive measures.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Cheer an Jose Shunson, proprietor of M/s. Four Star Associates, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged an order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18, marked as Ext.P1. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against this assessment order before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as per Ext.P2. Additionally, a petition for stay of proceedings related to the assessment order was filed, marked as Ext.P3. The petitioner's primary concern was the apprehension of coercive recovery proceedings being initiated before the stay petition could be adjudicated. The writ petition was filed seeking to prevent such premature coercive actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies of appeal and stay are available to the assessee? The assessee (petitioner) contended that they have filed an appeal and a stay petition before the appellate authority. However, they apprehend coercive proceedings before the stay petition is considered, necessitating the intervention of the High Court to prevent such actions. The assessee sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and a stay on coercive proceedings until then. The revenue (respondents) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the stay application. The judgment indicates that the court considered the submissions of both counsel.

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 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 25640 OF 2021 PETITIONER: CHEERAN JOSE SHUNSON AGED 40 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. FOUR STAR ASSOCIATES, PERUMATTY, KANNIMARI. PALAKKAD - 676305. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 2 (5), AYAKAR BAHVAN, THRISSUR - 680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680001. 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 2 (1), AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR - 680001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 25640 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 25640 of 2021 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 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.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 second respondent or the appellate authority concerned to consider

WP(C) NO. 25640 OF 2021 3 and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such decision is taken, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ

WP(C) NO. 25640 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25640/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 24.12.2019. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2020. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →