KRISHNAMOORTHY RAJENDRAN vs. THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/25520/2021HC KeralaKLHC01064065202117 November 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) and dispose of it within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This was to be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court reasoned that this would allow for an appropriate order to be passed on the stay petition. Consequently, all further recovery action pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) was deferred until the disposal of the stay petition and communication of the resultant order to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishnamoorthy Rajendran, proprietor of Hotel Kairali Towers, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery steps initiated against him. These steps were pursuant to an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner contended that recovery action was being pursued despite the pending appeal and stay petition, which he argued was illegal. The assessment year(s) and the specific authority that passed the assessment order are not explicitly stated. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether recovery action can be pursued while an appeal and stay petition are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that proceeding with recovery action while his appeal and stay petition were pending was illegal and unlawful. He relied on the pendency of Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 as grounds for challenging the recovery steps. Revenue's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no legal impediment for the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) within two months.

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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 25520 OF 2021 PETITIONER: KRISHNAMOORTHY RAJENDRAN, PROPRIETOR, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL KAIRALI TOWERS, NEAR STADIUM BUS STAND, COIMBATORE ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001. 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-110001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110001. SRI NAVANEETH.SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 25520/21 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the recovery steps being taken against him, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order, contending that he has already preferred Ext.P2 Appeal and Ext.P3 Stay Petition before the 2nd respondent – Commissioner of Income Tax. He alleges that even though Exts.P2 and P3 are still pending, recovery action under Ext.P1 is being taken forward and that this is illegal and unlawful.

2.

In response to the afore submissions of Smt.K.Krishna – learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents – Sri.Navaneeth N. Nath, submitted that there is no legal impediment for the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 Stay Petition and dispose it of in two months time. Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this Writ Petition and direct the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 Stay Petition of the petitioner and dispose it of, after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order/proceedings thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all further action for recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 will stand deferred. RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25520/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 28.09.2021. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.10.2021. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.11.2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →