THORACHIYIL VARKEY SABU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7360/2020HC KeralaKLHC01019379202011 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while noting that it ordinarily ought not to interfere in such matters, decided to dispose of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, to decide on the application for stay (Ext.P2(a)) filed along with the appeal (Ext.P2). This decision is to be taken in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of undue delay in appellate proceedings, the High Court may, in its discretion and in the interest of justice, direct the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of pending applications, provided no opinion is expressed on the merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thorachiyil Varkey Sabu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of his appeal and an interim application. The appeal was preferred against an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward 1(4), Ernakulam. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and an application for stay (Ext.P2(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. The writ petition was filed due to the alleged delay in the disposal of these applications by the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction for the disposal of an appeal and interim application by the appellate authority, and if so, what directions should be issued? Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to expedite the disposal of his pending appeal and stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, implying a grievance regarding the delay in proceedings. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the respondents (Income Tax Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, and Commissioner of Income Tax).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(C).No.7360 OF 2020(T) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7360 OF 2020(T) PETITIONER/S: THORACHIYIL VARKEY SABU AGED 54 YEARS THORACHIYIL, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-682 314 BY ADVS. SRI.A.KRISHNAN SRI.R.UMASANKAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 1 (4), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, CHAKKANATTU JUNCTION, KARUVELIPADI, MATTANCHERRY,KOCHI-682 002 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 6TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWER, MG ROAD, KARIKKAMURI, SHENOYS, KOCHI, KERALA-682 011 SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.7360 OF 2020(T) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal and interim application preferred against the assessment order issued by the first respondent.

2.

Though this Court ought not to have interfered, but in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2(a) application for stay filed along with Ext.P2 appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.7360 OF 2020(T) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL DATED 29.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2AOF THE STAY PETITION DATED 31.01.2020 FILE DIN EXT.P2 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →