SPACE CENTRE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T 1388, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/9152/2021HC KeralaKLHC01024196202109 June 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the appeals preferred by the petitioner and dispose of them within six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court clarified that it is open to the second respondent to consider the applications for condonation of delay filed in two of the appeals on their merits. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty orders or the validity of the delay condonation applications, but rather on the procedural step of considering the appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should consider appeals, including those with delay condonation applications, within a reasonable timeframe, provided the applications themselves are considered on their merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Space Centre Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., filed appeals before the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) challenging penalty orders (Exts. P2 to P5). Appeals against Exts. P2 and P5 were filed within the time limit. However, appeals against Exts. P3 and P4 were filed beyond the prescribed time, accompanied by applications for condonation of delay. The appeals are marked as Exts. P7, P8, P10, and P12. The petitioner has approached the High Court via a writ petition seeking a specific relief.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should consider the appeals filed by the petitioner, including those filed beyond the time limit with applications for condonation of delay? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, seeks a direction for the appellate authority to consider their appeals. No specific argument is recorded for the assessee regarding the merits of the penalty orders or the delay condonation applications, beyond the prayer for consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue.

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 GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9152 OF 2021 PETITIONER: SPACE CENTRE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T 1388, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ISRO POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 022 BY ADVS. T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 003 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, DELHI 110 001 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C) NO. 9152 OF 2021

JUDGMENT Challenging Exts. P2 to P5 orders imposing penalty, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that appeals filed against Exts.P2 and P5 penalty orders are filed within time, while the appeals filed against Exts.P3 and P4 penalty orders have been filed beyond time together with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals in question are produced as Exts.P7, P8, P10 and P12. 2. Considering the limited nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent to take up for consideration the appeals preferred by the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

3 WP(C) NO. 9152 OF 2021

I make it clear that, it is open to the 2nd respondent to consider the applications filed for condonation of delay in two of the appeals on its merits. GOPINATH P. JUDGE hmh

4 WP(C) NO. 9152 OF 2021

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9152/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 11637 OF 2020 DATED 15-06-2020 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 15- 05-2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 16- 05-2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 15- 05-2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 15- 05-2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 226 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 13-06-2019 FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 18-03-2020 FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED IN EXT P8 APPEAL ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 18-03-2020 FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED IN EXT P10 APPEAL ALONG 5 WP(C) NO. 9152 OF 2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 13-06-2019 FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED IN THE AFORESAID STATUTORY APPEALS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →