RAHEEM USMAN RAWTHER vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8064/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021073202016 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while noting that it "ought not to have interfered" in the matter, disposed of the writ petition in the interest of justice. The Court directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, to decide on the application for stay (Ext.P4) filed along with the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The principle derived is that while writ jurisdiction may not be the primary recourse for such matters, courts may intervene to ensure timely disposal of statutory appeals and applications, especially when delays are apparent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raheem Usman Rawther, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the appellate authority to dispose of his appeal and an interim application. The appeal was filed against an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Kollam. The third respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, is the appellate authority. The petitioner sought a decision on his application for stay filed along with his appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction for the disposal of an appeal and interim application by the appellate authority, when the statutory appellate process is available. Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to expedite the disposal of his pending appeal and stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the revenue. However, the court notes that it "ought not to have interfered" with the matter, implying a potential contention regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in the face of available statutory remedies.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(C).No.8064 OF 2020(G) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8064 OF 2020(G) PETITIONER/S: RAHEEM USMAN RAWTHER AGED 42 YEARS S/O. USMAN RAWTHER, SAJEENA MANZIL, AYYAN PILLAI, ROAD, KULATHUPUZHA P.O. KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM 691 310. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI SMT.NOORUNISSA K.A. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM 691 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADAIR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.8064 OF 2020(G) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal and interim application preferred against the assessment order issued by the second respondent.

2.

Though this Court ought not to have interfered, but in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 application for stay filed along with Ext.P2 appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE JM/

WP(C).No.8064 OF 2020(G) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1021645861(1) DATED 04.12.2019 ISSUED FRO THE YEAR 2017- 18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL DATED 04.03.2020 DATED 04.03.2020 FIELD BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1021645977(1) DATED 04.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY APPLICATION FIELD ON 05.03.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT. P2 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →