JAWAHARLAL MEMORIAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND PUBLIC CO OPERATION CENTRE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6633/2020HC KeralaKLHC01017754202004 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition within one month from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passes an order on the stay petition. The primary ratio is that procedural delays should not prejudice the assessee's right to a fair hearing on merits, especially when a stay is sought against recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jawaharlal Memorial Social Welfare and Public Cooperation Centre, filed an appeal against an assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. The appeal was filed with a delay condonation application (Ext.P3A) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner contended that recovery steps were initiated by the respondents for the amounts due under the assessment order even before the stay petition was considered. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions regarding the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be condoned, and if so, whether the stay petition should be considered expeditiously? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken despite the pending appeal and stay petition, implying a need for immediate intervention. The petitioner relied on the fact that the delay was only 68 days, suggesting it was a minor procedural lapse. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the delay or the stay petition. The court heard submissions from both sides.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(C).No.6633 OF 2020(D) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6633 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: JAWAHARLAL MEMORIAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND PUBLIC CO OPERATION CENTRE THALAYOLAPARAMBU,KOTTAYAM-686 605, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SMT. THANKAMMA P.G. BY ADVS. SMT.K.LATHA SMT.JESSY MANUEL RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD,SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001 3 THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,THALAYOALPARAMBU, NEELKAMAL ARCADE ,NEAR NICE CARNIVAL THEATRE, THALAYOLAPARAMABU-6865 605 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6633 OF 2020(D)

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2017-2018 under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3A delay condonation application and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts pursuant to Ext.P1 order.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

1.

Taking note of the fact that the delay in approaching the 2nd respondent is only 68 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of WP(C).No.6633 OF 2020(D) one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

2.

Recovery steps for recovery of amounts pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.6633 OF 2020(D)

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ITBA/AST/S/143 (3)/2019-20-1020584036(1) U/S.143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961,DATED 17.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO 35 ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE EXT P1 ORDER DATED 3.3.2020 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE 2 APPEALS DATED 4.3.2020 EXHIBIT P3A THE TRUE COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE P2 APPEALS FATED 4.3.2020 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BANK ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED 3.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →