ALKANZ MONEY EXCHANGE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6141/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016053202002 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala found that the reasoning assigned by the Income Tax Officer in the impugned order for imposing the condition of depositing 20% of the demanded amount appeared to be correct. The Court explicitly stated that it would not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and any observations made would not be construed as an expression of opinion in the pending appeals. The Court enlarged the time for the petitioner to comply with the condition to March 10, 2020. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the Court chose not to decide the merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Alkanz Money Exchange Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 30, 2020, passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). This order granted a conditional stay on the demanded amount, requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% of the sum by February 10, 2020. The petitioner sought to argue points on the merits of the case. The High Court of Kerala considered the petition on March 2, 2020. The procedural history involves the issuance of the conditional stay order by the ITO and the subsequent challenge by the petitioner through a writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Income Tax Officer for granting a stay, requiring the deposit of 20% of the demanded amount, is justified? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the assessing officer under relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, not explicitly named). Assessee's contention: The petitioner attempted to raise points on the merits of the matter, implying a challenge to the necessity or quantum of the 20% deposit. The judgment does not specify the authorities or precedents relied upon by the petitioner. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the reasoning assigned in the impugned order by the ITO was considered by the Court.

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 MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6141 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: ALKANZ MONEY EXCHANGE PRIVATE LIMITED 551, WARD XII KALLIPARAMPIL MEMORIAL BUILDING, KAIPAMANGALAM P.O.,MOONNUPEEDIKA, THRISSUR-680 681, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARDI/I,AAYAKARBHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR H.P.O.,THRISSUR-680 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR H.P.O., THRISUSR-680 001. SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6141 OF 2020(P) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the impugned order Ext.P5 dated 30.01.2020 whereby the 1st respondent ie. the Income Tax Officer has granted a conditional order of stay directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demanded amount up to 10.02.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to raise certain points on merits of the matter, but I do not deem it to be appropriate as it could be the matter of arguments pending appeals. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order imposing the condition of 20% apparently appears to be correct. Without expressing any opinion on the merits and with a rider that any observation of this Court will not be construed as an expression of opinion in the pending appeal, I enlarge the time upto 10.03.2020 for complying with the condition above mentioned. The writ petition, with aforementioned observation, will stand disposed of. AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE

WP(C).No.6141 OF 2020(P) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE PRE- ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO THE PRE- ASSESSMENT NOTICE. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX. EXHIBIT P3OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF STAY PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6OF THE CIRCULAR NO.27/2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. //// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →