MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/12218/2021HC KeralaKLHC01033153202101 July 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to decide the stay petition filed by the petitioner in the statutory appeal within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. The Court also directed that till the disposal of the stay petition, the respondents should defer proceedings for recovery of the amount determined by the assessment order. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the respondents for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of deferring recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muslim Educational Association, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19 by filing a statutory appeal along with a stay petition. During the pendency of this stay petition before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), the revenue authorities intended to recover the amount determined in the assessment order. The petitioner sought a restraint order against recovery proceedings until the appeal and stay petition were disposed of. The respondents acknowledged that the stay application was pending before the NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities should be restrained from recovering the amount determined by the assessment order pending the disposal of the statutory appeal and the stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should be halted until the disposal of their stay petition in the statutory appeal, to prevent irreparable financial hardship. The petitioner relied on the pendency of their stay application before the 2nd respondent. Revenue's Contention: The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's own averment indicated that the stay application was pending before the 2nd respondent.

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 THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12218 OF 2021 PETITIONER: MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION VENGOOR, PATTIKKAD, REG.NO.586/2001, PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SYED SADIK ALI SHIHAB. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON(M-206)-17278 RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12218 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT Heard both sides as the learned standing counsel appears for both the respondents.

The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. He challenged the assessment order for the year 2018-19 by filing appeal at Ext.P2 along with the copy of stay petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the stay petition in the statutory appeal challenging the assessment order at Ext.P1, the authorities are intending to recover the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1 and she therefore submits that the authorities be restrained from recovery of the amount till disposal of the appeal.

The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that on the own averment of the petitioner, his stay application is pending before the 2nd respondent.

In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to decide the stay petition filed by the petitioner in statutory appeal challenging the assessment order at Ext.P1 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this WP(C) NO. 12218 OF 2021 3 order. Needless to mention that the petitioner should co-operate with the respondents in expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Till disposal of the stay petition, the respondents are directed to defer the proceedings for recovery of the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1. N A.M.BADAR JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 12218 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12218/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 12.03.2021. Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.04.2021. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI DATED 16.04.2021. //true copy// PA to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →