HOTAL SOUPARNIKA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/13190/2020HC KeralaKLHC01033549202002 July 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in the interest of justice, disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court directed the second respondent, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take a decision on the applications for stay (Ext.P8 and P9) filed along with the appeals (Exts.P4 and P5) in accordance with law. This decision is to be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court mandated that this process should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The core principle established is that statutory appellate authorities should decide pending applications for stay in a timely manner, ensuring a hearing for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hotal Souparnika, represented by its Managing Partner Deepu Chacko, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction to the appellate authority (the second respondent, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to dispose of appeals (Exts.P4 and P5) and interim applications (Exts.P8 and P9). These appeals and applications were filed against assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P2) issued by the first respondent, The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Kollam. The respondents also include the Tax Recovery Officer and two banks. The writ petition was filed in the High Court on July 2, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to dispose of pending appeals and interim applications filed by the assessee against assessment orders. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should be directed to decide the pending appeals and interim applications. The petitioner relied on the general principle that appeals and applications filed before statutory authorities should be disposed of expeditiously. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. The court's direction is issued without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

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 AMIT RAWAL THURSDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.13190 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER/S: HOTAL SOUPARNIKA NO.XXVIII/C/0374/71 PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DEEPU CHACKO. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, KOLLAM-691 004. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3 THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER O/O THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYKAR BHAWAN, IST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 4 THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, KADAPAPAKADA BRANCH, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM-691 008. 5 THE BRANCH MANAGER THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., KOLLAM BRANCH, PONNAMMA CHAMBERS II, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM, 691 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.13190 OF 2020(W) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 2nd day of July 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the Exts.P4 and P5 appeals and Exts.P8 and P9 interim application preferred against the Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders issued by the first respondent. 2. Though this Court ought not to have interfered, but in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8 and P9 application for stay filed along with Exts.P4 and P5 appeals 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. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak

WP(C).No.13190 OF 2020(W) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P3OF THE LIST OF SEIZED RECORDS DATED 25.3.2015. EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER DATED 28.1.2019. EXHIBIT P5OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 ORDER DATED 28.1.2019. EXHIBIT P6OF THE NOTICE NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1026492866(1)/251 DATED 12.3.2020. EXHIBIT P7OF THE NOTICE NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019- 20/1026493879(1)/250 DATED 12.3.2020. EXHIBIT P8OF THE STAY PETITION FILED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 IS DATED 19.6.2020. EXHIBIT P9OF THE STAY PETITION FILED FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 IS DATED 19.6.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →