TULSI DEVELOPERS INDIA (P) LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3222/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008844202006 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P3). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without undue delay, preferably within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Until orders were passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for enforcing the impugned order were to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tulsi Developers India (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner's grievance was that despite filing an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) against an order (Ext.P1), the assessing authority had initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Income Tax Officer, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The case was heard on February 6, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene to prevent coercive recovery proceedings during the pendency of a stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that coercive recovery steps were being taken while their stay application was pending. The revenue did not record any specific arguments 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947 WP(C).No.3222 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: TULSI DEVELOPERS INDIA (P) LTD. VIII/522B, 139, MAVELIPURAM, SEAPORT-AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI G. THULASIDAS BY ADVS. SRI.AJI V.DEV SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV SHRI.KIRAN RAMACHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYANKAR BHAVAN, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD - II(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KACHERIPADY, KOCHI - 682 018 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) G-51, PARAPILLY LANE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, GIRI NAGAR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, KERALA - 682 036 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.3222/2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3222 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

2.

Heard Sri. Aji V. Dev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3.

After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 3rd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P4 stay application filed in Ext.P3 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/ counsel, if any, shall pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 24-12-2019 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED DATED 24-01-2020 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P1 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 17-01- 2020 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 17- 01-2020 FILED ON 23-01-2020

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →