SANDEEP S. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4,

WP(C)/12174/2020HC KeralaKLHC01031072202022 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court recalled its previous mistaken order and issued a fresh judgment. It directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to take a decision on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P4) and stay application (Ext.P4(a)) in accordance with the law. The Commissioner was instructed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Commissioner was directed not to insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular of 2017. The Court also ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The specific assessment order being challenged is not detailed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep S., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of his appeal and stay application pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was filed against an appellate order (Ext.P1) passed by the Commissioner. The petitioner sought a direction for the Commissioner to decide the appeal without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a 2017 circular. The High Court noted that a previous judgment directing consideration of the appeal was mistakenly issued as a different order, and therefore, recalled the earlier judgment. The assessment year(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal and stay application. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to decide the appeal without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, in accordance with a 2017 circular. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of his appeal and stay application. He also contended that the Commissioner should be directed to decide the appeal without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, relying on a circular issued in 2017. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue's side.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUE AY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.12174 OF 2020(V) PETITIONER/S: SANDEEP S. SREENIVAS, OLD THIRUMALA, MULLACKKAL, ALAPPUZHA- 688011. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KRISHNAN SRI.R.UMASANKAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 4, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULANGARA COMPLEX, A.N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688011. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BAKER HILL, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-686002. OTHER PRESENT: GP - SMT. M.M.JASMIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.12174 OF 2020(V) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 22nd day of September 2020 In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, a judgment directing consideration of the appeal ought to have been passed. But by mistake, a different order has been issued. Hence the judgment dated 19.6.2020 is recalled and the following is issued.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P4 appeal and stay application Ext.P4 (a) preferred before the second respondent against the appellate order Ext.P1. 3. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment without insisting on payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per circular of 2017. Till such time a decision is taken on the appeal, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.12174 OF 2020(V) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 18/11/2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 26/12/2019, ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/12/2019 IN EXT.P2. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL, DATED 31/01/2020, FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 12/06/2020 FILED IN EXT.P4 APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →