SANTHOSH KUMAR N. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/14900/2020HC KeralaKLHC01037625202023 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. The 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed 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, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance until such time as the 2nd respondent passed orders on the stay petition and communicated them to the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for further action. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Santhosh Kumar N., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery steps initiated by the respondents. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. The grievance was that recovery steps were being taken even before the stay petition was considered by the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to prevent these recovery actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether recovery steps can be initiated against the petitioner for amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) prior to the disposal of the stay petition (Ext.P3) filed before the appellate authority? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being pursued prematurely, even before the appellate authority had an opportunity to consider the stay petition. This prejudiced the petitioner's right to seek relief against the assessment order. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The learned Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

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 WP(C).No.14900 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: SANTHOSH KUMAR N. AGED 55 YEARS PALLIVADAKETHIL HOUSE, ADOOR P.O., ENATHU - 691 526. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695003. OTHER PRESENT: SC : CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.14900 OF 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 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 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:

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.

WP(C).No.14900 OF 2020 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 SJ

WP(C).No.14900 OF 2020 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13/12/2019 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017- 18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →