ROMY REX vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7343/2020HC KeralaKLHC01019375202011 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while noting that it ought not to have interfered, disposed of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) to decide the application for stay (Ext.P2(a)) filed along with the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with law. This decision was to be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court directed that any proceedings contemplated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as the stay application is decided. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of undue delay in the disposal of statutory appeals and stay applications, the High Court can, in its writ jurisdiction, direct the appellate authority to decide the matter within a specified period, while keeping coercive proceedings in abeyance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Romy Rex, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the appellate authority to dispose of his appeal and interim application. The appeal was filed against an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer (respondent 1). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 2) is the appellate authority. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing an appeal and an application for stay (Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition was filed because the appeal and stay application had not been decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal and interim application filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/administrative direction). The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of his appeal and stay application. The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that a decision on the stay application would be taken if a time frame was fixed by the Court. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond the prayer in the writ petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(C).No.7343 OF 2020(P) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7343 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: ROMY REX AGED 59 YEARS EXCEL KADAVIPARAMBIL, KUMBALANGI, ERNAKULAM-682 007. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KRISHNAN SRI.R.UMASANKAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 2 (5), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, L.G.TOWERS, P.T.JACOB ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM-682 005. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, CHAKKANATTU JUNCTION, KARUVELIPADI, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 6TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWER, M.G.ROAD, KARIKKAMURI, SHENOYS, KOCHI, KERALAA-682 011. SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.7343 OF 2020(P) 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 - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2.

Learned Counsel for the income tax department submitted that appropriate decision on the application of stay would be taken by the authorities, if a time frame is fixed by this Court.

3.

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 second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2(a) 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 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till

WP(C).No.7343 OF 2020(P) 3 such time, if any proceedings contemplated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.7343 OF 2020(P) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 29.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 31.1.2020 FILED IN EXT P2 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →