SREEVALSAM HOTELS AND RESORT PVT LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/5801/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015267202027 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after perusing the relevant documents (Exts.P1 to P6), was prima facie satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (the appellate authority). The Court found that the limited prayer and the grounds raised in the writ petition warranted intervention. Accordingly, the Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petitions (Exts.P5 and P6) 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 order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders or the stay petitions themselves, but rather on the procedural aspect of their timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sreevalsam Hotels and Resort Pvt Ltd, filed appeals (Exts.P3 and P4) against assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P2) under the Income Tax Act. Along with these appeals, the petitioner filed stay petitions (Exts.P5 and P6). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala by way of a writ petition (WP(C).No.5801 OF 2020(A)) seeking a direction to the appellate authority (the second respondent) to consider and dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously. The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay petitions allows the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings, potentially rendering the statutory appeals infructuous. The writ petition was filed on February 27, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petitions filed by the assessee pending appeal? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of stay petitions allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, which can make the statutory appeals academic or ineffective. - The law mandates that orders on stay petitions should be passed expeditiously to protect the interest of the appellant pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue in the provided 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 THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5801 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: SREEVALSAM HOTELS AND RESORT PVT LTD RAJAVALSAM, PANANGADU P.O, KULANADA VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 503 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI ARUN RAJ PILLAI 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 27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5801 OF 2020(A) 4 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeals in Exts.P3 and P4 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Exts.P1 and P2 made under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed the appeals with Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 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 Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Exts.P3 and P4. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeals 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 appeals, the WP(C).No.5801 OF 2020(A) 4 orders on stay petitions are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts.P1 to P6. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of stay petitions in Exts. P5 and P6. 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/the second respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions 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.5801 OF 2020(A) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30- 12-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20- 12-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME EXHIBIT P3OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21-01-2020 FOR AY-2013-14 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21-01-2020 FOR AY- 2014-15 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01-02- 2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14 EXHIBIT P6OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01-02- 2020 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →