DR.AMBEDKAR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST, vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/22158/2021HC KeralaKLHC01056834202113 October 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, upon considering the submissions of both parties, 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 stay petition (Ext.P5) 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 against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, focusing solely on ensuring a timely adjudication of the stay application and preventing immediate recovery actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. Ambedkar Educational and Cultural Trust, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19, marked as Ext.P3. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National E-Assessment Center, Delhi, as per Ext.P4. Concurrently, a petition for stay of proceedings under the assessment order was filed as Ext.P5. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery actions before their stay petition is adjudicated. Consequently, the petitioner has approached the High Court by way of a writ petition seeking intervention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of their stay petition pending before the appellate authority, and a stay of coercive proceedings until such disposal? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are apprehending coercive proceedings for recovery of the demand raised in the assessment order, even before their application for stay of demand is considered by the appellate authority. They sought a direction for the speedy disposal of the stay petition and a stay on coercive actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the presence of the revenue as respondents indicates their opposition or at least their right to be heard on the petitioner's prayer.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22158 OF 2021 PETITIONER: DR.AMBEDKAR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST, WARD III. B.NO. 339, PULLUR PERIYA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 316, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN -MUJEEB C.M. BY ADVS. DIVYA RAVINDRAN LINCY GLANCY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E - ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI 110001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTER DELHI 110 001. SRI,CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22158 of 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22158 of 2021 -------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2021

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P3 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.P4. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P5. 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.P5 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/13.10.2021

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22158/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT DATED 18.9.2015. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON E FILING PORTAL ON VARIOUS DATES. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144 DATED 19.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.8.2021 FOR AY 2018- 19 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 31.8.2021 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →