REMEY KESAVAN DHARMARAJAN ASARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6412/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016325202003 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 consider the petitioner's application for stay regarding the demand raised, in view of the garnishee orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the judgment. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the Income Tax Officer on 10.03.2020, and the 15-day period for considering the stay application would commence thereafter. The Court ordered that the implementation of the garnishee notices issued by the Income Tax Officer be kept in abeyance until the stay application is considered. The Court explicitly stated that these directions should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. The primary decision was procedural, focusing on expediting the stay application's disposal and providing interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Remey Kesavan Dharmarajan Asari, filed an appeal and a stay application against an assessment order dated 30.12.2019, which raised a demand of Rs. 47,58,218/-. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner received notices under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that these notices were illegal and arbitrary as his appeal and stay petition were still pending. The Income Tax Department stated that the appellate authority would consider the petitioner's request within a timeframe fixed by the Court. The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the stay application within 15 days of receiving the judgment, in light of garnishee orders issued by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the Income Tax Officer on 10.03.2020, with the 15-day period commencing thereafter. Implementation of garnishee notices was ordered to be kept in abeyance until then.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of notices under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, while an appeal and stay application against the assessment order are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), is illegal and arbitrary? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The action of the Income Tax Officer in issuing notices under Section 220(6) is illegal and arbitrary because the appeal and stay petition against the assessment order are still pending. Revenue's Contention: The appellate authority would consider the petitioner's request on the basis of a time frame to be fixed by the Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

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 TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6412 OF 2020(B) PETITIONER: REMEY KESAVAN DHARMARAJAN ASARI AGED 38 YEARS, REVATHI HOUSE, MULAVOORKONAM, VAVARAMBALAM, POTHENCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 584 BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), FIRST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM-695 003 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 003 BY SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6412 OF 2020(B) 2

JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that eventhough he preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay application against Ext.P1 assessment order dated 30.12.2019 raising a demand of Rs.47,58,218/-, during the interregnum, confronted with notices under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the 1st respondent.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary, since the appeal and stay petition preferred against Ext.P1 assessment order is still pending.

3.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Income tax submitted that the appellate authority would consider the request of the petitioner on the basis of the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

4.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, this writ petition is disposed with a direction

WP(C).No.6412 OF 2020(B) 3 to the 2nd respondent to consider the application for stay regarding the demand raised, in view of the garnishee orders issued by the 1st respondent, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall also appear before the 1st respondent on 10.3.2020 and the 15 days period will be construed thereafter. Till such time, implementation of Ext.P4 garnishee notices issued is ordered to be kept in abeyance. I also make it clear that the directions made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Skk//03032020

WP(C).No.6412 OF 2020(B) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-12-2019 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7-2-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →