JAMES UTHUPPAN vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5648/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015014202004 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the petitioner's prayer for an interim stay as and when moved. The Court noted that the writ petition lacked particulars regarding any coercive measures notice issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such as garnishee or penalty proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was directed to decide the interim application within 15 days from the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Until then, the interim order previously granted by the High Court was ordered to be extended. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the interim stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, James Uthuppan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 for assessment year 2013-14. He had preferred a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 30.01.2020, which was pending adjudication. The petitioner's primary concern was the apprehension of coercive measures by the revenue. The revenue's counsel submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide any interim application filed by the petitioner, acknowledging the pendency of appeals and the need to process them by seniority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when a statutory appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? The petitioner argued that he was apprehending coercive measures from the revenue due to the pending appeal. The revenue contended that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide any interim application filed by the petitioner, as there were many pending appeals to be processed according to seniority. The judgment does not explicitly frame the issues as questions of law or fact, nor does it name specific provisions or authorities relied upon by the parties beyond the general context of pending appeals and coercive measures.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220

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.5648 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER: JAMES UTHUPPAN, AGED 53 YEARS, THATHAMKULAM, NEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686012. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001. R1-2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX 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.5648 OF 2020 -2-

JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that against the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 preferred a statutory appeal, Ext.P2 dated 30.01.2020 is stated to be pending adjudication. The predicament of the petitioner, in such circumstances, owing to the apprehension of coercive measures is writ large.

2.

Mr.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax submits that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the interim application, if submitted by the petitioner, as there are many pending appeals and they have to be taken as per seniority.

WP(C).No.5648 OF 2020 -3-

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and apprised the paper book, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on the prayer for the interim stay as and when moved by the petitioner, though the writ petition is bereft of any particulars of issuance of any coercive measures notice under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, like garnishee or penalty. In case such application is made, the same shall be decided by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till then, the interim order granted by this Court is ordered to be extended. AMIT RAWAL vv JUDGE

WP(C).No.5648 OF 2020 -4-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE PERIOD 2013-14 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.01.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. KADUTHURUTHY BRANCH SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 24.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S SISTER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 220

All 519 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →