KRISHNAMONEY CHITS PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/5748/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015260202027 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 (Exts.P1, P2, and P3), was satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the appellate authority. The Court directed the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P3) 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 did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishnamoney Chits Private Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to expeditiously consider and dispose of its stay petition. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The delay in disposing of the stay petition was causing concern, as it could lead to the assessing officer initiating recovery proceedings for the disputed tax amount, potentially rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The petitioner argued that the law provides for the protection of an appellant's interest pending appeal and that stay orders should be passed promptly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure/administrative direction) Assessee's contentions: - Mere filing of an appeal or pendency of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, which could render the appeal academic or ineffective. - The law provides for the expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the interest of the appellant pending appeal. Revenue's contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

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 THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5748 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: KRISHNAMONEY CHITS PRIVATE LTD., SREEVALSAM BUILDING PANDALAM, M.C. ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689501, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. ARUN RAJ PILLAI. BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, AYAKAR BHAVAN, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM-691001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 28/243, POORNIMA, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5748 OF 2020(P) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has filed the appeal with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 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 Ext.P3 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. 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 WP(C).No.5748 OF 2020(P) 3 the interest of appellant pending appeal, the order on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts.P1, P2, and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of stay petition in Ext.P3. 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 Ext.P3 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.5748 OF 2020(P) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/12/2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME. EXHIBIT P2OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21/01/2020 OF AY 2017-18FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01/02/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017- 18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →