USHADEVI PURUSHOTHAMAN vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-II)

WP(C)/6451/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016887202004 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeals and the applications for condonation of delay preferred against the assessment orders (Exts.P1, P6, and P10) without insisting on the payment of 20% of the disputed amount. The Court further directed that steps for recovery of amounts pertaining to the demand notices shall be kept in abeyance. The stay of the demand is to remain in effect until the decision on the application for condonation of delay or any interim prayer is made. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the Government circular or the merits of the appeals themselves, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of deciding the pending applications and appeals.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ushadevi Purushothaman, proprietrix of Bell Foods, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner challenged the insistence of income tax authorities to pay 20% of the disputed amount for preferring appeals against assessment orders passed under Section 143(2). These assessment orders are referred to as Exts.P1, P6, and P10. The petitioner had filed appeals (Exts.P3, P8, and P12) along with applications for condonation of delay. The petitioner argued that the insistence on payment was based on a Government circular dated 31st July 2017, which had not been appreciated by the High Court in previous judgments. The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondents to decide the appeals and condonation of delay applications without insisting on the 20% payment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate authority can insist on the payment of 20% of the disputed amount as a pre-condition for deciding the appeals and applications for condonation of delay, despite the petitioner's reliance on previous High Court judgments that have not appreciated the Government circular dated 31st July 2017? The assessee contended that the insistence on payment of 20% of the disputed amount, based on the Government circular dated 31st July 2017, was contrary to the High Court's previous pronouncements. The assessee argued that the appellate authority should decide the appeals and condonation of delay applications without this insistence. The revenue's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

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 AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6451 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: USHADEVI PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 70 YEARS W/O.R.VIKKRAMAN, PROPRIETRIX, BELL FOODS, PALLICHAL ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682005. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-II) INCOME TAX OFFICE, PANAMPILLAY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682036. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 2(5), NON CORPORATE RANGE, XVI/997, A-21, 2ND FLOOR, LG TOWERS, P.T.JACOB ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682005. SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6451 OF 2020(F) 2

JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that against the assessment orders passed under Section 143(2), Exts.P1, P6 and P10, the petitioner has preferred appeals, Exts.P3, P8 and P12 along with an application for condonation of delay and the income tax authorities are insisting for payment of 20% of disputed amount on the basis of the Government circular dated 31st July 2017. The aforementioned circular has not been appreciated by this Court in a catena of the judgments and thus urging this Court for issuance of writ by directing respondents to decide the appeal and application for condonation of delay, including interim prayer without insistence of 20% of the amounts. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and apprised the paper book, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeals and the application for condonation of delay preferred against the assessment orders, Exts.P1, P6 and P10 without insisting 20% of the payment in accordance with law. Steps for recovery of WP(C).No.6451 OF 2020(F) 3 amounts pertaining to the demand notices shall be kept in abeyance. The stay of the demand is till the decision on the application for condonation of delay or any interim prayer. The writ petition is disposed of. AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE

WP(C).No.6451 OF 2020(F) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM DATED 14.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 14.12.2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 08.06.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF TAX PAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 27.02.2018 ISSUED FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE F.NO.ITO/NC WARD 2(5)/2015-16 DATED 14.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ITBA/PNL/M/271B/2018-19/1010320751(1) DATED 29.06.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND NO.ITBA/PNL/M/27IB/156/2018- 19/1010320751(1) DATED 29.06.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 05.10.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.35 OF THE APPEAL DATED 08.10.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF TAX PAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 05.10.2019 ISSUED FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1022261744(1) DATED 13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. WP(C).No.6451 OF 2020(F) 5 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 13.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12(A) TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.35 OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF TAX PAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 13.01.2020 ISSUED FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.404/72/93-ITCC DATED 31.07.2017 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →