SREEVALSAM GOLD AND DIAMONDS PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6040/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015578202028 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (appellate authority) to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petition as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring timely consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sreevalsam Gold and Diamonds Private Ltd, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed a stay petition (Ext.P3) seeking a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner contended that the delay in disposing of the stay petition by the appellate authority (second respondent) would allow the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings, rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court can issue a direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of a stay petition expeditiously, when the recovery proceedings are likely to render the appeal ineffective? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing of an appeal or pendency of a stay petition does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, making the appeal academic or ineffective. - The law mandates expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions from the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

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 S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6040 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER: SREEVALSAM GOLD AND DIAMONDS PRIVATE LTD SREEVALSAM BUILDING, M.C.ROAD, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI.VARUN RAJ. BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, 28/243, POORNIMA, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6040 OF 2020(D) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 28th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P3 stay petition results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the order on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence WP(C).No.6040 OF 2020(D) 3 the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Ext.P3. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The appellate authority/second respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 stay petition as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of

copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE DCS

WP(C).No.6040 OF 2020(D) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2018-19 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION IN INCOME. EXHIBIT P2OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.01.2020 FOR AY 2018-19 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2018-19.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →