VIVEK ALEX vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5546/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014645202026 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, finding a prima facie case, directed the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) as early as possible, preferably within ten weeks 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, Vivek Alex, 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 his stay petition. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. He contended that the mere filing of an appeal or its pendency does not automatically grant a stay. The delay in deciding the stay petition could lead to the assessing officer initiating recovery proceedings, rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The petitioner sought protection against coercive steps until the stay petition was decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of a stay petition filed by the assessee pending appeal? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) The assessee argued that the delay in disposing of the stay petition could render the statutory appeal infructuous and that the law mandates expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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.5546 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: VIVEK ALEX AGED 33 YEARS ELENJICKAL MANAPURATHU BUNGALOW, VEEYAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA-690514 BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULANGARA COMPLEX, A.N.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688011 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOTTAYAM-686001 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: 2 WP(C).No.5546 OF 2020(P) JUDGMENT Dated this the 26th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. 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 Ext.P3 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 stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied 3 WP(C).No.5546 OF 2020(P) that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the 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 stay petition as early as possible, preferably within ten weeks 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 hmh

4 WP(C).No.5546 OF 2020(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →