VARKEY CHERIAN, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/8962/2020HC KeralaKLHC01023157202023 July 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. Firstly, the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within four months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Secondly, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance until orders were passed on the stay petition and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for further action. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Varkey Cherian, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. A demand notice (Ext.P4) was also issued. The petitioner alleges that recovery steps were initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition was considered. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions regarding the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the revenue are premature and ought to be stayed pending disposal of the stay petition filed by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that recovery steps were being taken for amounts confirmed by the assessment order even prior to the consideration of the stay petition filed against that order. The assessee sought a direction to keep recovery steps in abeyance. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the premature recovery steps or the stay petition.

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 23RD DAY OF JULY 2020/1ST SRAVANA, 1942 W.P(C).No.8962 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER: MR. VARKEY CHERIAN, AGED 43 YEARS AMC X/335, MANJOORAN HOUSE, ASAN LANE, ALUVA-683101, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KAP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA-683101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)II, POORNIMA BUILDING, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, COCHIN-682036. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.8962/2020 :: 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. Ext.P4 is the demand notice issued to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed 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 W.P.(C).NO.8962/2020 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 shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and 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 W.P.(C).NO.8962/2020

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13/12/2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 14/01/2020 FOR AY-2017-18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 09/01/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →