K.T.DAISON, vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/10850/2020HC KeralaKLHC01027937202003 June 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to dispose of the application for condonation of delay and the stay application, filed along with the appeal against the assessment order, in accordance with law. This disposal was to be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that the demand raised as per Ext.P5 be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the delay condonation and stay applications. It was clarified that this interim order would operate only until the disposal of these applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K.T. Daison, proprietor of M/s. Kaitharan Traders, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide his application for condonation of delay, stay, and appeal. The appeal was preferred against an assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner had filed the appeal, a delay condonation petition, and a stay application. However, the 2nd respondent had not taken any action on these applications. The 1st respondent had raised a demand as per the assessment order on the same date the appeal was filed. The petitioner's predicament was that the 2nd respondent had not acted on his applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the pending applications for condonation of delay and stay. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that he had filed an appeal, a delay condonation petition, and a stay application against the assessment order, but the 2nd respondent had not taken any action. The petitioner sought a direction for the 2nd respondent to decide these applications. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that a stay cannot be granted in the absence of condonation of delay.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.10850 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER/S: K.T.DAISON, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KAITHARAN TRADERS, PUTHNVELIKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM-683594. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALUVA-683101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682036. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.10850 OF 2020(E) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner in the instant writ petition has invoked the juri iction of this Court for issuance of an appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent to take a call on the application for condonation of delay, stay and appeal preferred against the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 Ext.P1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that against the aforementioned order Ext.P1, Ext.P2 appeal, Ext.P3 delay petition and Ext.P4 stay application have been preferred. However, on the same date, 1st respondent raised a demand as noticed in the assessment order. The predicament of the petitioner is writ large as the 2nd respondent has not taken action so far.

2.

Issue notice before admission. Sri.Christopher Abraham accepts notice and submits that the stay cannot be granted in the absence of condonation of delay.

3.

Having heard the parties and appraised the paper book, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition by issuing direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exts.P3 application for delay and Ext.P4 stay application preferred along with the appeal against the assessment order, in accordance

WP(C).No.10850 OF 2020(E) 3 with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the demand raised as per Ext.P5 is ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim order will operate only till the disposal of the application for condonation of delay and stay application. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.10850 OF 2020(E) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 27/12/2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 02/03/2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/03/2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/03/2020. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02/03/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →