UNIVERSAL GOSPEL MINISTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/14792/2020HC KeralaKLHC01037594202022 July 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and submissions, directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within four months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that until such orders were passed and communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) would be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the second respondent. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of the stay application and recovery proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Universal Gospel Ministries, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed against them under the Income Tax Act. Against this order, they preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner's grievance was that recovery steps were initiated for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order even before the stay application was considered by the appellate authority. The writ petition sought directions from the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer (respondent 1) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 2) acted appropriately in initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner before the disposal of the stay petition filed by the petitioner under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority had an opportunity to decide on the stay application. The petitioner sought a direction to halt these recovery proceedings until the stay petition was adjudicated. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the premature recovery. However, their presence and representation indicate their role in the assessment and appeal process.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned

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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.14792 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: UNIVERSAL GOSPEL MINISTRIES CARMEL, ARA-52, KULUMALA PULIYARAKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SEBASTIAN MATHEW BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD, FIRST FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003 OTHER PRESENT: S.C. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.14792 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the 2nd respondent had an occasion to consider the stay application, the recovery steps were taken for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner under Ext.P1 assessment order.

I have heard Sri.Arun Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel for the respondent. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within an outer time limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed, and the order communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE WP(C).No.14792 OF 2020 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2019 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →