JOHNSON GEORGE, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/14529/2020HC KeralaKLHC01036902202017 July 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 a direction to the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court also directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) be kept in abeyance until the 3rd respondent passes an order and communicates it to the petitioner. This direction was made taking into account the amounts already paid by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 3rd respondent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Johnson George, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. He had preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 3rd respondent. The petitioner stated that 20% of the disputed amount had already been paid during the pendency of the appeal. The limited prayer was for a direction to the 3rd respondent to decide the appeal and to halt further recovery proceedings until then. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Thiruvalla, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) against the assessment order (Ext.P1)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of his appeal and stay of recovery proceedings pending the appeal's decision, noting that a portion of the disputed amount had already been paid. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed. No authorities, circulars, or precedents were mentioned by the revenue in the judgment.

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 FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.14529 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: JOHNSON GEORGE, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, THAKADIYIL, KEERUKUZHI, PANDALAM, THEKKEKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 502. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.2, THIRUVALLA 689 101, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT CIRCLE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, AAYKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS0, AAYKAR BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. OTHER PRESENT: SC-SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.14529 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that 20% of the disputed amount has already been paid during the pendency of the appeal. The limited prayer at this stage is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal and to keep in abeyance further recovery proceedings till then.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner. Taking note of the amounts already paid by 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 the orders are passed by the 3rd respondent, as directed, and the order communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE WP(C).No.14529 OF 2020 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERNO.ITBA/AST/144/2019- 20/1023240437(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YAR 2017-18 DATED 27.12.2019 EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO.35 DATED 18.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY AND EARLY HEARING DATED 7.2.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4 COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 6.3.2020

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →