INA INDIA FORMULATIONS, vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/26785/2021HC KeralaKLHC01067262202129 November 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, decided to dispose of the writ petition with a specific direction. The court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but rather focused on ensuring that the stay petition is adjudicated promptly and that the assessee is protected from coercive action during this period. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee apprehends coercive action before the adjudication of a stay petition filed along with an appeal, the High Court can direct the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the stay petition and grant a stay on coercive proceedings pending that decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Ina India Formulations, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. They are aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-2019, marked as Ext.P1. The assessee filed an appeal before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, a copy of which is Ext.P2. Concurrently, a petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order was filed as Ext.P3. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before their stay petition is adjudicated. Consequently, they have filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the appellate authority, and if so, what direction should be issued regarding the adjudication of the stay petition and coercive proceedings? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the procedural fairness in tax proceedings). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that they apprehend coercive proceedings before their stay petition is considered by the appellate authority and sought intervention from the High Court. The specific authorities or precedents relied upon are not recorded. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, appeared before the court. Their specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment, other than their presence and submission of counsel.

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 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 26785 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: M/S.INA INDIA FORMULATIONS, LEMIHA BUILDINGS, KANIYAPILLY ROAD, VENNALA, ERNAKULAM-682 028, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, FAIZAL B.A. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI 110 001. ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 26785 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ========================== W.P.(C) No.26785 of 2021 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2021

JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, relating to assessment year 2018- 2019, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence, this writ petition.

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.

WP(C) NO. 26785 OF 2021 3

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,

JUDGE AMV/29/11//2021

WP(C) NO. 26785 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26785/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →