SMT. POOJA RAJ PILLAI, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/26536/2020HC KeralaKLHC01065315202001 December 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III (the second respondent) to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petitions (Exts.P4(a) to P6(a)) within four months of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P3) be kept in abeyance until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed orders on the stay petitions and communicated them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent for further action. The core principle established is that recovery proceedings should be halted pending the disposal of stay applications by the appellate authority to ensure fair adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Pooja Raj Pillai, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P3) passed under the Income Tax Act. She had preferred appeals (Exts.P4 to P6) along with stay petitions (Exts.P4(a) to P6(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III, the second respondent. The petitioner contended that despite filing these appeals and stay petitions, the respondents initiated recovery steps for the amounts confirmed in the assessment orders. The writ petition sought directions from the High Court regarding the pending stay petitions and the ongoing recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the respondents are premature, given that the petitioner has filed appeals and stay petitions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the provisions of the Income Tax Act relating to appeals and stay of demand). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken even before the stay petitions were considered by the appellate authority, which prejudiced her right to seek relief. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but implicitly related to the appeal and stay provisions under the Income Tax Act.

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.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.26536 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER/S: SMT. POOJA RAJ PILLAI,AGED 28 YEARS D/O. M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI, RAJAVALSAM, PANANGADU P.O, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 501 BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.T.SAILESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM 691 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III 28/243, POORNIMA, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN 682 036 3 THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER 9CENTRAL) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOCHI 682 018 OTHER PRESENT: GP : DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.26536 OF 2020(N) 2

JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals together with Exts.P4(a) to P6(a) stay petitions before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petitions, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

1.

The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass reasoned orders on Exts.P4(a) to P6(a) stay petitions within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

2.

Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent in the stay petitions as directed above and communicate the said orders to the petitioner.

3.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE WP(C).No.26536 OF 2020(N) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18- 03-2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2012-13 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18- 3-2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY- 2013-14 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18- 03-2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 25-05-2020 FOR AY-2012-13 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 14-11- 2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2012-13 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 25-05-2020 FOR AY-2013-14 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 14-11- 2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOIR AY-2013-14 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 25-05-2020 FOR AY-2014-15 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 25-05-2020 FOR AY-2014-15 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 14-11- 2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →