C.K.JACOB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/15605/2020HC KeralaKLHC01039308202030 July 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1), including those pursuant to the recovery notices (Ext.P4 series), shall be kept in abeyance until the Commissioner passes orders on the stay petition and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent for further action. The judgment does not explicitly state any finding on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of pending stay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, C.K. Jacob, challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act by filing an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. Despite the pending stay petition, recovery steps were initiated by the respondents, as evidenced by notices (Ext.P4 series). The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court of Kerala to prevent recovery actions until the stay petition was decided. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and various banks and government departments involved in recovery.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the respondents are premature, given that a stay petition is pending before the appellate authority? The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings were initiated before the appellate authority had an opportunity to consider and decide the stay petition filed against the assessment order. The petitioner contended that the recovery steps were therefore premature and ought to be halted. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not appear to have made specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the prematurity of recovery steps. The judgment indicates that the court heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, but the specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed in relation to the issues raised by the petitioner.

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 THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2020/8TH SRAVANA, 1942 W.P(C).No.15605 OF 2020 PETITIONER: C.K.JACOB AGED 73 YEARS CHOWALLUR HOUSE, THAIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR – 680 103. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, WEST NADA, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR – 680 101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR – 686 021. 3 THE MANAGER FEDERAL BANK LTD., CHOWALLURPADY, THRISSUR – 680 104. 4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS DIVISION, THRISSUR – 680 020 5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER LSGD SECTION, ELAVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR – 680 511. 6 THE TREASURY OFFICER, SUB – TREASURY, TREASURY SAVINGS BANK, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR – 680 506. 7 THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHAVAKKAD BRANCH, THRISSUR – 680 506 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC BY SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOV. PLEADER BY SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC BY SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.15605/2020 :: 2 ::

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even before considering the stay petition, recovery steps were initiated by the respondents as per Ext.P4 series of notice for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel 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:

The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order including further steps pursuant to Ext.P4 series of notices shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and the orders communicated to the petitioner.

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

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION MOVED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(A): COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(B): COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →