JOHNY MATHEW vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3537/2022HC KeralaKLHC01007749202202 February 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of with a specific direction. The court noted that the stay application (Ext.P4) was filed before the third respondent but needed to be considered by the second respondent. Consequently, the court directed the third respondent to transmit Ext.P4 to the second respondent within one month of receiving the judgment. The second respondent was then directed to consider and pass orders on the stay petition within two months of receiving it. Crucially, the court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Johny Mathew, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2018-19, marked as Ext.P1. He filed an appeal before the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre) as Ext.P3. Concurrently, he filed a petition for stay of proceedings arising from the assessment order, marked as Ext.P4, before the third respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram). The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery actions before his stay petition is considered, leading him to file this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies of appeal and stay application are available and pending. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he filed an appeal and a stay petition and apprehended coercive proceedings before the stay petition could be adjudicated. He sought directions from the High Court to ensure his stay petition is considered promptly and to prevent coercive action until then. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue would abide by the court's directions regarding the processing of the stay petition and the deferral of coercive proceedings.

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 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3537 OF 2022 PETITIONER: JOHNY MATHEW ARAMBANKUDY HOUSE, NADUKANI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686691. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMONY SRI.B.PRABHAKARAN SMT.NANCY PRABHAKAR RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) C BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, S P M CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.3537/22 -:2:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3537 of 2022 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2022

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2018-19, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P.

3.

A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P4 before the third respondent. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition.

2.

Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.

3.

Since the application for stay was filed before the third respondent and the same is required to be considered by the second respondent, Ext.P4 has to be forwarded to the appellate authority concerned. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the third respondent to transmit Ext.P4 to the second respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the second respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of Ext.P4 stay petition. Till such a decision is taken on Ext.P4, all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3537/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1032261228/ (1) DATED 07.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1032261272(1) DATED 07.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBIT-P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 04.09.2021. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 25.01.2022.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →