M.SETHUMADHAVAN vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/16822/2022HC KeralaKLHC01034060202225 May 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's request for an expeditious disposal of the stay petition. The Court found merit in directing an expeditious consideration of the stay application. Accordingly, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P2(a)) as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is disposed of. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment or the stay application itself, as the writ petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M. Sethumadhavan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of his stay application. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against an order of assessment for the assessment year 2014-2015, passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Along with the appeal, an application for stay of the assessment order was also filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's grievance was the delay in the disposal of this stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a stipulated period, considering the delay in adjudication. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed solely to seek a direction for the respondents to dispose of the stay petition within a limited timeframe. No specific authorities or precedents were cited in the judgment for this contention. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the respondent appeared and was heard. The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the stay application.

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO.16822 OF 2022 PETITION ER: M. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, MANGHAT HOUSE, KOMANGALAM, P.O. KOOTTANAD, PALAGHAT-679 533. BY ADV. V.P. NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER MAYUR BHAVAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110 003. SRI, JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C) NO.16822 OF 2022 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16822 of 2022 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2022

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment for the year 2014-2015, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, Ext.P2(a) application for stay has also been preferred.

Sri. V.P. Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limited relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the stay petition within a limited period.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing an expeditious consideration of the stay petition.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2(a) application for stay, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a -3- W.P.(C) NO.16822 OF 2022 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE bpr

-4- W.P.(C) NO.16822 OF 2022

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B DATED 17.02.2022 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.02.2022. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 17.03.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 16.03.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →