SUBRAMANIAN BABU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8228/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021579202017 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. It directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (referred to as the third respondent in the judgment, though the ITAT is not explicitly listed as a respondent in the cause title, the direction is to the Tribunal) to consider the interim application (stay petition) filed along with the appeal. This consideration must be done in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of the order. The operation of the garnishee notice was ordered to be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the interim application. The interim stay granted was explicitly stated to be only until the disposal of the interim application and not beyond.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Subramanian Babu, proprietor of Saravana Fuels, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to consider his stay petition filed along with an appeal. The appeal and stay application were filed on March 11, 2020, against an assessment order. Subsequently, the petitioner received a garnishee notice. The petitioner approached the High Court due to the urgency created by the garnishee notice. The Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were respondents, along with the Indian Bank, which issued the garnishee notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider the stay petition filed along with the appeal, given the urgency of a garnishee notice being issued. (Question of procedure and urgency) The petitioner argued that the appeal and stay application were filed on March 11, 2020, and a garnishee notice was subsequently received, necessitating urgent consideration of the stay petition. The revenue, through the Government Pleader, contended that the Tribunal would consider interim applications but appeals are taken up based on seniority. No specific legal provisions were cited by either party in their arguments before the High Court.

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 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8228 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: SUBRAMANIAN BABU PROPRIETOR, SARAVANA FUELS, CHITTUR ROAD, MANAPULLIKAVU, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680 001. 3 THE INDIAN BANK, 1ST FLOOR, MALABAR FORT, KANDATH COMPLEX, PALAKKAD-678 00, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.8228 OF 2020(C) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 17th day of March 2020 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider Ext.P3 stay petition preferred along with the appeal, Ext.P2 against the order of the assessment Ext.P1. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the appeal and stay application have been filed on 11th March 2020. However, post thereto received a garnishee notice Ext.P4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3.

The learned Government Pleader submits that the Tribunal would not have any difficulty in taking up the interim application but the appeals are being taken up on seniority basis.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider Ext.P3 interim application

WP(C).No.8228 OF 2020(C) 3 preferred along with the appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till such time, the operation of garnishee notice, Ext.P4 is ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim stay is till the disposal of the interim application and not beyond. AMIT RAWAL dlk/19.03.2020 JUDGE

WP(C).No.8228 OF 2020(C) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 5.12.2019 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 11.3.2020 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.3.2020 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3D RESPONDENT BANK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →