MAHESH RAMAMURTHI vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

WP(C)/3483/2020HC KeralaKLHC01009769202007 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the first respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to dispose of the stay petitions (Ext.P4 series) expeditiously. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petitions as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for three months from the date of the judgment. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court can intervene to ensure timely disposal of stay petitions to protect the assessee's interests pending appeal, preventing recovery actions that could render the appeal infructuous. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh Ramamurthi, filed second appeals (Ext.P3 series) against assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) under the Income Tax Act, along with stay petitions (Ext.P4 series). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of these stay petitions. The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay petitions allows the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings, potentially rendering the statutory appeals ineffective or academic. The High Court perused the relevant documents and found a prima facie case for issuing directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of stay petitions filed by the assessee pending second appeals? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency, turning on the principles of natural justice and the purpose of stay petitions in tax appeals). Assessee's Contentions: - Mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not constitute a grant of stay by the appellate authority. - Delay in disposing of stay petitions leads to the assessing officer initiating recovery steps, which can render the appeals academic or ineffective. - The law provides for the protection of the appellant's interest pending appeals, necessitating expeditious disposal of stay orders. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions of the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.3483 OF 2020

TC 41/67

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3483 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER/S: MAHESH RAMAMURTHI AGED 53 YEARS TC 41/677, JAISREE BUILDINGS, PRS ROAD, THYCASUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014 BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SHRI.ABRAHAM JOB SRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I AND C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 037 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(1), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 OTHER PRESENT: JOS WINSON FOR CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 3483/2020 -2- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 7th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed second appeals in Ext.P3 series aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Ext.P1 series made under the Income Tax Act and the first appellate order in Ext.P2 series. The petitioner has filed the appeals with Ext.P4 series of stay petitions. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 series expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P4 series results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P3 series. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeals would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeals, W.P.(C) No. 3483/2020 -3- the order on stay petitions is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4 series. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to first respondent to dispose of the stay petitions in Ext.P4 series. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be

disposed of by this order: (a)

The appellate authority/first respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P4 series as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b)

The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for three months from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE jjj -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 EXHIBIT P1(A)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 EXHIBIT P1(B)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 EXHIBIT P1(C)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 EXHIBIT P1(D)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16 EXHIBIT P1(E)OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2(A)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 EXHIBIT P2(B)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2(C)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2(D)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2(E)OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 -5- EXHIBIT P3(A)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 EXHIBIT P3(B)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 EXHIBIT P3(C)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 EXHIBIT P3(D)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16 EXHIBIT P3(E)OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17 EXHIBIT P4OF APPLICATIONS FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 EXHIBIT P4(A)OF APPLICATION FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 EXHIBIT P4(B)OF APPLICATION FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 EXHIBIT P4(C)OF APPLICATION FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 EXHIBIT P4(D)OF APPLICATION FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015-16 EXHIBIT P4(E)OF APPLICATION FOR STAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →