SREEVALSAM GOLD AND DIAMONDS PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/5900/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015579202028 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after perusing the relevant documents, was satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petitions (Exts.P5 and P6) as early as possible, preferably within two 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 amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court found a prima facie case for issuing such directions based on the limited prayer and grounds presented by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sreevalsam Gold and Diamonds Private Ltd, filed appeals (Exts.P3 and P4) against assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P2) under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Along with these appeals, the petitioner filed stay petitions (Exts.P5 and P6) with the appellate authority. The petitioner contended that the delay in disposing of the stay petitions was causing the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings for the disputed tax amount, potentially rendering the statutory appeals ineffective. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of these stay petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court can direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of stay petitions filed along with appeals under the Income Tax Act, 1961, when recovery proceedings are being initiated by the assessing officer? Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing of an appeal or pendency of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of stay petitions allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, which can render the statutory appeal either academic or ineffective. - The law provides for expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions from the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

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 S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5900 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: SREEVALSAM GOLD AND DIAMONDS PRIVATE LTD SREEVALSAM BUILDING, M.C. ROAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-689501, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI. VARUN RAJ, BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)III 28/243, POORNIMA, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5900 OF 2020(J) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 28th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeals in Exts.P3 and P4 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Exts.P1 and P2 made under Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has filed the appeals with Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Exts.P5 and P6 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Exts.P3 and P4. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal 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 appeal, the orders on stay petitions are passed WP(C).No.5900 OF 2020(J) 3 expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts.P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of stay petitions in Exts.P5 and P6. 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/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P5 and P6 application as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS

WP(C).No.5900 OF 2020(J) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2016-17 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME. EXHIBIT P3OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.01.2020 FOR 1Y-2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.01.2020 FOR AY-2017-18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2016-17. EXHIBIT P6OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01.02.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →