N.K.VINOBA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/9771/2020HC KeralaKLHC01025014202018 May 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of with specific directions. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay application within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a speaking and reasoned order. Pending this decision, revenue recovery proceedings based on the demand notice were to be kept in abeyance. This relief was conditional upon the petitioner depositing 10% of the demanded amount within one month. The Court did not explicitly address the broader issue of entertaining writ petitions when statutory remedies exist, focusing instead on providing interim relief and expediting the statutory process. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, such as a pandemic-induced lockdown, the High Court can direct the expeditious disposal of statutory appeals and stay applications, subject to certain conditions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, N.K. Vinoba, is challenging an assessment order dated December 28, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). He filed a statutory appeal and a stay application on February 1, 2020, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While these were pending, the ITO issued a notice demanding Rs. 10,11,482/- for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, citing the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown which commenced on March 24, 2020, as a reason for the delay in the disposal of his appeal and stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies are available, and if so, under what circumstances? 2. What directions, if any, should be issued regarding the pending appeal and stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the demand raised by the ITO? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to the nationwide lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, his statutory appeal and stay application were pending, and the ITO had issued a demand notice. He sought relief from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel for Income Tax, opposed the prayer for an interim stay. However, they submitted that an appropriate direction could be issued to the appellate authority for the disposal of the interim application along with the appeal after the lockdown, subject to the deposit of 20% of the demanded amount.

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 TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2020/28TH VAISAKHA, 1942 W.P(C).NO. 9771 OF 2020 PETITIONER : N.K. VINOBA, 894A/16/560, NEELIMATHARA HOUSE, KOTTUVALLIKKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., MOOTHAKUNNAM, N. PARUR – 683 516, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. HARISANKAR. V. MENON, ADV. MEERA. V. MENON RESPONDENTS:: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 3, K.A.P. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, OFFICE OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALUVA RANGE, R.S. ROAD, ALUVA – 683 101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 036. SC FOR INCOME TAX, JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO. 9771 OF 2020 2

J U D G M E N T The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the assessment order Ext.P1 dated 28.12.2019, petitioner preferred a statutory appeal along with stay application dated 1.2.2020. However, during the pendency of the aforementioned appeal, and stay application the concerned ITO issued a notice raising demand for an amount of Rs.10,11,482/- for the assessment year 2017-18. He submits that the predicament of the petitioner is writ large immediately after passing of the impugned order owing to the Covid-19 Pandemic, there was nation wide lock down with effect from 24.3.2020, appeal and stay application are still to be decided.

Issue notice before admission. Sri.Jose Joseph accepts notice and opposes the prayer for interim stay and further submits that an appropriate direction can be issued to the appellate authority for the disposal of interim application along with the appeal within a reasonable period after lock down is over subject to deposit of the 20% of the demanded amount which is not phenomenal.

W.P(C).NO. 9771 OF 2020 3 Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, appraised the paper Book, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take a call on application of stay within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking and reasoned order. However, till such time, the revenue recovery proceedings based on Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the demand raised within a period of one month. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. jm AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE

W.P(C).NO. 9771 OF 2020 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXT.P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT - 2017-18 EXT.P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL \\ TRUE COPY \\\ PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →