SURESH RAMAMURTHI vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3509/2020HC KeralaKLHC01009923202007 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while perusing the provided documents (Exts. P1, P2, P3, and P4 series), was prima facie satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the first respondent (appellate authority) to dispose of the stay petitions. The Court acknowledged the limited prayer and the grounds presented by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petitions (Ext. P4 series) as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for a period of three months from the date of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty orders or the appeals themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal of stay petitions and a temporary stay on recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suresh Ramamurthi, filed appeals (Ext. P3 series) against penalty orders (Ext. P1 series) passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the KVAT Act. He also filed stay petitions (Ext. P4 series) along with these appeals. The petitioner's grievance is that the delay in considering and disposing of these stay petitions by the appellate authority (first respondent) allows the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings for the disputed tax amount. This, he argues, could render the statutory appeals ineffective or academic. The petitioner seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the mere filing or pendency of an appeal amounts to a stay of recovery proceedings by the appellate authority, and if not, what is the implication of delay in deciding stay petitions? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of procedural provisions related to appeals and stay orders). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contends that the mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay. He argues that the delay in disposing of stay petitions by the appellate authority prejudices the appellant, as it allows the assessing officer to pursue recovery, potentially making the appeals moot. He relies on the principle that the law provides for the protection of an appellant's interest pending appeal, implying that stay orders should be passed expeditiously. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.3509 OF 2020
TC 41/67

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3509 OF 2020 PETITIONER: SURESH RAMAMURTHI AGED 50 YEARS TC 41/677, JAISREE BUILDINGS, PRS ROAD, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM-695014. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SHRI.ABRAHAM JOB SRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I AND C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682037. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. BY ADV. SRI. JOS WINSON FOR ADV. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM. SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3509 OF 2020 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 7th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed Ext. P3 series appeals aggrieved by Ext.P1 series penalty orders made under Section 271(1)(c) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeals along with Ext.P4 series stay petitions. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 series stay petitions expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P4 series stay petitions results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P3 series. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeals would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending WP(C).No.3509 OF 2020 3 appeals, the order on stay petitions are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1, P2, P3 and P4 series. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to first respondent to dispose of the stay petitions in Ext.P4. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The appellate authority/first respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P4 series stay petitions as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt

of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for three months from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE DCS

WP(C).No.3509 OF 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.6.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12. EXHIBIT P1(A)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.6.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13. EXHIBIT P1(B)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.6.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14. EXHIBIT P1(C)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.6.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15. EXHIBIT P1(D)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.6.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16. EXHIBIT P1(E)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.6.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2(A)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13. EXHIBIT P2(B)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2(C) TRUE COPIES OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2(D)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2(E)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12. EXHIBIT P3(A)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13. EXHIBIT P3(B)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3(C)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15. WP(C).No.3509 OF 2020 5 EXHIBIT P3(D)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16. EXHIBIT P3(E)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17. EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12. EXHIBIT P4(A)OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13. EXHIBIT P4(B)OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14. EXHIBIT P4(C)OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15. EXHIBIT P4(D)OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16. EXHIBIT P4(E)OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →