KOORAKKADAN EBRAHIM RASHEED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/227/2022HC KeralaKLHC01000494202206 January 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while considering the submissions of both parties, opined that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The court directed the 2nd respondent to immediately forward the appeal (Ext.P2) and the stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) to the 3rd respondent. Upon receipt, the 3rd respondent was directed to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Ext.P2(a) and Ext.P4(a)) in a time-bound manner, within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment and the appeal/stay petitions. Until a decision is taken on the stay petitions, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and rectification order (Ext.P3), were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Koorakkadan Ebrahim Rasheed, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 (Ext.P1). He filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Subsequently, a rectification order was issued on November 17, 2021 (Ext.P3), against which another appeal was filed before the 3rd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi). Stay petitions were also filed along with these appeals. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before his stay petitions are 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 appeals and stay petitions are pending before the appellate authorities, and the primary grievance is the apprehension of coercive proceedings before the stay is decided? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he filed appeals and stay petitions against the assessment and rectification orders. He is apprehending coercive proceedings before the stay petitions are considered, necessitating the intervention of the High Court through a writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel was present and submissions were considered by the court. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments against the writ petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: KOORAKKADAN EBRAHIM RASHEED AGED 38 YEARS KOORAKKADAN HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA, P. O. PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 556. BY ADVS. T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) NISHA JOHN V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3/WARD 2, KAP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALUVA RANGE, R. S. ROAD, ALUVA - 683 101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 28/243 "POORNIMA", NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 110 001. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OTHER PRESENT: ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ======================== W.P.(C)No.227of 2022 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2022

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2017-18, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. Subsequently, an order of rectification was issued on 17.11.2021 as per Ext.P3 against which Ext.P4 appeal has been preferred before the 3rd respondent.A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders have also been filed as per Ext.P2 (a) & Ext.P4 (a). Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petitions for stay are 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.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to forward Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P2 (a) stay petition to the 3rd respondent immediately, and on receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 (a) & Ext.P4 (a) stay petitions, in a time bound manner, at any rate, within a period

WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2022 3 of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as well as the appeal and stay petitions. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to Exts.P1 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE jm/

WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 227/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2019 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.12.2019. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 18.02.20 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2(a) STAY PETITION DATED 18.02.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND ORDER DATED 17.11.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST THE 2ND ORDER FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION AGAINST THE 2ND ORDER FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →