M/S.SMART RESIDENCY HOTELS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/5825/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015273202027 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, perusing the documents, was prima facie satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II) to dispose of the stay petitions. 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 did not decide on the merits of the appeals themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expediting the stay petition disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Smart Residency Hotels India Private Ltd., filed appeals against assessment orders for unspecified assessment years. These appeals, along with stay petitions, were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II. 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 amounts. This, the petitioner argued, would render the statutory appeals ineffective. The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of the stay petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of stay petitions filed by the assessee pending appeal? (Question of procedure and administrative direction). Assessee's Contentions: - Mere filing of an appeal or its pendency does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of stay petitions leads to the Assessing Officer taking recovery steps, potentially rendering statutory appeals ineffective or academic. - The law mandates 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 THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5825 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: M/S.SMART RESIDENCY HOTELS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., XIII-325A, MARATHAKKARA, BYE PASS ROAD, OLLUR(P.O.), THRISSUR-680306, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI ARUN RAJ PILLAI. BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTER CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, 28/243, 'POORNIMA', PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH,SC 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.5825 OF 2020(C) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27th 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 the Income Tax Act. 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 stay petitions 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 appeals 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 appeals, the WP(C).No.5825 OF 2020(C) 3 orders on stay petitions are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts.P1 to P6. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second 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/the second respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions 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 DCS

WP(C).No.5825 OF 2020(C) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-S012-13 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE & COMPUTATION OF INCOME. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE & COMPUTATION OF INCOME. EXHIBIT P3OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.1.2020 FOR AY-2012 - 13 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.1.2020 FOR AY-2013-14 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 1.2.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2012-13. EXHIBIT P6OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 1.2.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →