NUCLEUS PREMIUM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5496/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014654202026 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the delay condonation (Ext.P3) and stay (Ext.P4) applications 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 these directions based on the limited prayer and grounds presented by the petitioner. The judgment did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nucleus Premium Properties Private Limited, filed appeals against assessment orders (Ext.P1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. These appeals (Ext.P2) were filed with a delay condonation petition (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the appellate authority (2nd respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the delay condonation and stay petitions. The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding these petitions allows the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings, rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The High Court perused the documents and found a case for issuing directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the delay condonation and stay petitions filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure/administrative direction). Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing 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, potentially making the appeal academic or ineffective. - The law mandates expeditious disposal of delay and stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions from the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5496 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: NUCLEUS PREMIUM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR VENTURA, NH 47, BYE-PASS, KOCHI-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, N.P. NISHAD. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2(5), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036. SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5496 OF 2020 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 26th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeals in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed the appeals with a delay condonation petition of 20 days in Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Exts.P3 and P4 (stay petition) 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 the interest of appellant pending appeal, the orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. WP(C).No.5496 OF 2020 3 Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1, P2, P3 and P4. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petitions and stay petitions in Exts.P3 and P4 respectively. 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 judgment:- (a) The appellate authority/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P3 and P4 applications 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 uu 27.02.2020

WP(C).No.5496 OF 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 20.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 11.2.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2020.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →