THE DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/11957/2021HC KeralaKLHC01032564202108 June 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, having considered the circumstances, decided that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P7) within a time-bound manner. The Court directed the respondent to pass orders on Ext.P7 within four months of receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 (penalty order) and Ext.P6 (presumably another demand notice) shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is disposed of as directed. The High Court did not decide the merits of the penalty or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, the District Lottery Officer, Kozhikode, is aggrieved by an order imposing a penalty (Ext.P4). An appeal against this penalty order has been filed before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ext.P5). During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner filed a petition for stay of recovery proceedings (Ext.P7). The petitioner apprehends that recovery proceedings for the amounts demanded under Ext.P4 may be initiated, which they believe would be disastrous. The High Court heard arguments from both the Government Pleader for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the department.

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 what is the appropriate course of action in such circumstances? (Question of law and procedure) The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings would be disastrous and sought intervention. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, was heard. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments beyond being heard.

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 TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11957 OF 2021 PETITIONER : THE DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER, C BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION (P.O), KOZHIKODE - 673 020 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER,(TDS) IIIRD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11957 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order imposing a penalty, an appeal has been preferred before the respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P5. During the pendency of Ext.P5, a petition for stay has been filed as Ext.P7. Petitioner apprehends that proceedings for recovery of the amounts demanded under Ext.P4 may be initiated against it, which will, according to the Petitioner be disastrous.

2.

I have heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the department.

3.

Having considered the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that this writ petition itself can be disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 petition for stay in a time bound manner.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 petition for stay, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till the said petition is disposed of as WP(C) NO. 11957 OF 2021 3 directed above, all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 and Ext.P6 for recovery of the amount demanded, shall be kept in abeyance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM

WP(C) NO. 11957 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ITO(TDS)/CLT/CHND00034G/194B/ 2017-18 P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT P1 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.TDS/CLT/LOTTERY/194B/2018- 19. P4 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS TDS/CLT/DLO-CLT/201(1)&(IA)/FY 2015- 16/2018-19 P5 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-2016. P6 : COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED ON 04.03.2021 FROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TDS RANGE, KOZHIKODE DIRECTING TO PAY DISPUTED AMOUNT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY. P7 : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →