M/S. NATIONAL RADIO ELECTRONICS, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6580/2022HC KeralaKLHC01014291202228 February 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the absence of an uploading facility for stay petitions in pending appeals under the Faceless Appeal regime is prejudicial to the principles of the Rule of Law. Consequently, the Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to provide a link to the petitioner to upload their stay petition within one month of receiving the judgment. If the petitioner uploads the stay petition within two weeks of receiving the link, the 3rd respondent is to consider it expeditiously, within four weeks of uploading, after hearing the petitioner. Until an order is passed on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order and related notices are to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the stay petition itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. National Radio Electronics, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner had filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and simultaneously filed a stay petition due to apprehension of recovery proceedings. The petitioner's grievance was the inability to upload the stay petition due to the 'Faceless Appeal' regime, causing significant difficulty. The petitioner sought a direction for the consideration of their stay petition in a time-bound manner. The High Court noted that similar difficulties had been faced by other assessees.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be provided with a mechanism to upload their stay petition in a pending appeal under the Faceless Appeal regime, and if so, within what timeframe? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the current Faceless Appeal regime prevents the uploading of stay petitions in pending appeals, causing them great difficulty and prejudice. They sought a direction for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider their stay petition within a time-bound manner. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on the issues raised by the petitioner. However, the Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 was heard.

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 MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 6580 OF 2022 PETITIONER : M/S. NATIONAL RADIO ELECTRONICS, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 471, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHAJI.P. BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KONNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR - 670 006. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KONNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR 670 006. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI – 110 01. 4 THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 471. 5 THE MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD, PAYYANNUR - 670 307. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC R4 BY SRI.JITESH MENON, SC FOR SBI R5 BY SRI.BINNY JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 6580 OF 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No.6580 of 2022 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 28th day of February, 2022

JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P1 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18, petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 3rd respondent. In the meantime, since the petitioner apprehended recovery proceedings, a stay petition was filed before the 3rd respondent through the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode. The limited relief claimed by the petitioner is for a direction to consider the stay petition in a time bound manner.

2.

I have heard Sri.Arun Raj S., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 3. Having regard to the fact that the stay petition cannot be uploaded in pending appeals as per the present Faceless Appeal regime, the assessees are put to great difficulty. Obviously it was in such circumstances that petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 stay petition to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode, though addressed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre.

4.

In few similar cases, this Court had directed the Faceless Appeal Centre of the Income Tax Department to provide links to WP(C) NO. 6580 OF 2022 3 appellants to upload the stay petitions in pending appeals and had even observed that, absence of such uploading facility in pending appeals is prejudicial to the principles of Rule of Law. Since the petitioner is also faced with a similar difficulty, it is necessary that despite Ext.P5 stay petition having been preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode, the petitioner be granted an opportunity to file a stay petition in a time bound manner, in the pending appeal before the 3rd respondent.

5.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to provide a link to upload the stay petition in the pending appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner uploads the stay petition within two weeks from the date of receipt of the link to upload the stay petition, the 3rd respondent shall consider the said stay petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the stay petition and after hearing the petitioner. Till orders are passed on such stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM

WP(C) NO. 6580 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6580/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2019 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT U/S 226 (3) OF THE ACT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT U/S 226 (3) OF THE ACT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BANK. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →