BALAKRISHNAN NAIR MANAPPATTU MAHESHKUMAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/11698/2020HC KeralaKLHC01030003202015 June 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take a decision on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and stay application (Ext.P3) in accordance with law. This decision is to be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also directed that recovery proceedings pursuant to the demand notice shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the interim application. The interim stay granted is explicitly stated to be only until the disposal of the interim application and not beyond.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balakrishnan Nair Manappattu Maheshkumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay application (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Kottayam, is the other respondent. The petitioner sought a directive for the respondent to decide the appeal and stay application expeditiously. The High Court heard the learned counsel for both parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merits, issued directions for the disposal of the appeal and stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the respondent authority to dispose of the pending appeal and stay application filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to the respondent authority to dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay application (Ext.P3) which were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's argument, implied by the filing of the writ petition, is that there has been an undue delay in the disposal of his appeal and stay application, necessitating judicial intervention. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the revenue. The revenue was represented, and the court heard the learned counsel for the parties, but their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

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 AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.11698 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: BALAKRISHNAN NAIR MANAPPATTU MAHESHKUMAR MANAPPATTU HOUSE, KOOROPADA, PANGADA, KOTTAYAM- 686502. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.11698 OF 2020(J) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 appeal and stay application Ext.P3 in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till such time, recovery proceedings pursuant to the demand notice shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim stay is till the disposal of the interim application and not beyond. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak

WP(C).No.11698 OF 2020(J) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 26.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.4.2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF CHALLAN NO.01229 FOR RS.50,000/- OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE - PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.3.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →