WADAKKANCHERY SILK GARDEN PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5778/2020HC KeralaKLHC01011117202027 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, P2, and P3), found that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the 2nd respondent (appellate authority). The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P3) 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 expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Wadakkanchery Silk Garden Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 (2nd 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, emphasizing the legal provisions for protecting an appellant's interest pending appeal.

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 petition filed by the assessee pending appeal? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) The assessee argued that the mere pendency of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay and that the delay in deciding the stay petition could lead to coercive recovery actions by the assessing officer, making the appeal academic or ineffective. The assessee relied on the statutory provisions for protecting an appellant's interest during the pendency of an appeal. The revenue's contentions are not 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 THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5778 OF 2020(V) PETITIONER/S: WADAKKANCHERY SILK GARDEN PVT. LTD. SILK GARDEN, WADAKKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR-680 582, REPRESENTED BY IS DIRECTOR K.H.KAMALUDHEEN. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), THRISSUR. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN TAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. SC JOSE JOSEPH 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.5778 OF 2020(V) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has filed the appeal 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 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 WP(C).No.5778 OF 2020(V) 3 is passed expeditiously. Hence 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 2nd respondent to dispose of 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/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 application 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 JS

WP(C).No.5778 OF 2020(V) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL E-FILED DATED 13.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18. EXHIBIT P3OF STAY PETITION DATED 02.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017- 18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →