M/S MANAPPURAM FOUNDATION vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/15564/2021HC KeralaKLHC01041553202104 August 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to consider and decide the stay petition within a period of three months from the date of communication of the judgment. The Court also directed that the impugned recovery action, pursuant to the assessment order, should be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the respondent for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the stay petition is addressed promptly and recovery is deferred.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Manappuram Foundation, challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) by filing a statutory appeal and a stay petition (Exts.P2 and P3) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Despite these filings, the respondents proceeded with recovery of the assessed amount, issuing a recovery notice dated 20.07.2021. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking to prevent recovery proceedings during the pendency of their appeal and stay petition. The respondents did not dispute the pendency of the appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents are valid during the pendency of the petitioner's statutory appeal and stay petition before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents were insisting on recovery of the assessed amount despite the filing of a statutory appeal and a stay petition. They sought to prevent recovery actions until their stay petition was decided. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, opposed the writ petition and contended that the stay petition should be directed to be decided within a period of three 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 A.M.BADAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15564 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: M/S MANAPPURAM FOUNDATION, V/104, MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 567, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE.V.P NANDAKUMAR. BY ADV DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI-110 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI-110 001. 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) EXEMPTION CIRCLE, SANJUAN TOWER, BEHIND C R BUILDING, KOCHI-682 018. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 15564 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 assessment order by filing statutory appeal along with stay petition vide Exts.P2 and P3 . However, during pendency of those proceedings, the respondents are insisting for recovery of the amount determined vide recovery notice dated 20.07.2021. 3. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the petition and contended that the stay petition be directed to be decided within a period of three months.

4.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the concerned respondent to consider and decide the stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall co-operate with the concerned respondent in expeditious disposal of the stay petition as well as appeal. Till

WP(C) NO. 15564 OF 2021 3 disposal of the stay petition, the impugned action of recovery in pursuant to Ext.P1 should be kept in abeyance. A.M.BADAR JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 15564 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15564/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.4.2021 FOR AY-2018-19 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL E-FILED DATED 20.5.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2018-19 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 19.5.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY-2018-19, ON 20.5.2021 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 20.7.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.7.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →