RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

WP(C)/10256/2020HC KeralaKLHC01026561202025 May 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not adjudicated the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal or the interim application within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court also ordered that coercive action pertaining to the assessment order be kept in abeyance until the adjudication of the appeal. The interim direction was to remain operative only until the appeal was decided. No specific issue was left undecided; the court's action was procedural.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raju Joseph Vayalath, a businessman, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the inaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in adjudicating his appeal against an assessment order. The petitioner's appeal and an interim application filed against the assessment order had not been decided. The High Court issued notice to the respondents, and the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department indicated no objection to a direction for adjudication. The High Court, without commenting on the merits, disposed of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order, thereby necessitating the invocation of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that there has been no adjudication on his appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), leading to the present writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that there would be no objection to an appropriate direction being issued for the adjudication of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

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 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2020/4TH JYAISHTA, 1942 W.P(C).NO. 10256 OF 2020 PETITIONER RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT, S/O JOSEPH VAYALAT, HOUSE NO. 1/262, VAYALAT HOUSE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 001 BY ADVOCATE SHRI.O.D. SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR 682036. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), NON CORPORATE, KOCHI 682 001. BY ADVOCATE SHRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.10256/20 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner, a business man preferred an appeal against the assessment order Ext.P1. The predicament of the petitioner is writ large as there is no adjudication on the appeal. It is in these circumstances the extra ordinary writ juri iction of this Court under Article 226 has been invoked.

Issue notice before admission. Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that there would not be an aversion to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, in case an appropriate direction is issued for the adjudication of the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and without commenting on the merits of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to take a call on the appeal Ext.P2 or interim application preferred against the assessment order as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Till such time, coercive action if any pertaining to Ext.P1 order is ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim direction shall be operative only till the adjudication of the appeal. With the aforementioned direction, this writ petition is disposed of. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.03.2016 EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE PERIOD 2013-14 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2016

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →