M/S. KAITHARAN AGENCIES, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/10989/2020HC KeralaKLHC01028272202004 June 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard. The disposal must occur within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court specified that the appellate authority should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Until a decision is rendered on the appeal, recovery proceedings stemming from the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance. The judgment does not address the merits of the assessment order or the grounds of appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kaitharan Agencies, represented by its Managing Partner K.T. Daison, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of an appeal (Ext.P2) that the petitioner had filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Aluva, is the first respondent, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is the second respondent. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing an appeal before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner. Assessee's contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeal. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the merits of the appeal or the grounds for delay. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard. However, the specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed in the judgment. It is implied that the revenue was represented and heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL THUR AY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.10989 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER/S: M/S. KAITHARAN AGENCIES, PUTHENVELIKARA.P.O, ERNAKULAM-683594, REPRESENTED BY K.T.DAISON,MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2,OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,ALUVA-683101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682036. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.10989 OF 2020(W) ..2.. JUDGMENT Dated this the 4th day of June 2020 Petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order Ext.P1. 2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 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 SB/05/06/2020 JUDGE

WP(C).No.10989 OF 2020(W) ..3..

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT-2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →