AJU JOHN ZACHARIAH, vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3132/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008894202005 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its previous Division Bench judgments in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and subsequent cases like W.P.(C).No.523/2020, ordered that the 2nd appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) shall ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, without much delay and within a reasonable time frame to be fixed by the appellate authority. Crucially, the Court directed that until the final orders are passed disposing of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself but provided interim relief pending the statutory appeal. The operative direction is to keep coercive steps in abeyance and to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aju John Zachariah, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and seeking directions for the disposal of his statutory appeal (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P5) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer, respectively. The petitioner sought to prevent the enforcement of demands under the assessment order and requested the appellate authorities to pass orders on his appeal and stay petition after providing a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The petition was filed against the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents should be commanded not to enforce the demands under the assessment order (Ext.P1) in any manner? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents should be commanded to pass orders on the petitioner's statutory appeal (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P5) after affording a reasonable opportunity to present his case, at the earliest? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner contended that coercive steps for recovery and collection of the impugned tax should be kept in abeyance until a final decision is rendered by the appellate authority. The petitioner relied on the dictum laid down by a Full Bench of the High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287] and a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019, which held that insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in similar circumstances. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions were 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3132 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER/S: AJU JOHN ZACHARIAH, AGED 45 YEARS VELAMPARAMPIL HOUSE, PERUNGALA.P.O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-690502 BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.K.AMAL NATH NAIK SRI.RENOY VINCENT SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR SMT.FEMY ANN JOHNSON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IS PRESS RD, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682018 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXZ, LAL BAHADUR SASTRI ROAD, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM-686001 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -I, AND TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULANGARA COMPLEX, A.N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688011 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3132 OF 2020(N) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 3132 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2020

JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to not enforce the demands under Exts.P1 assessment order in any manner and (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pass orders on Ext.P3 statutory appeal and Ext.P5 petition for stay of operation of the impugned orders after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to present their case, at the earliest. (iii) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, necessary, proper and just in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and (iv) to allow this Writ petition (Civil) with costs to the petitioner.”

2.

Heard Sri. Aswin Gopakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents.

3.

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has taken the view that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded, as a condition for grant of stay, need not be insisted in cases as in the instant one and that the Division Bench, for reasons stated therein, has ordered that it is for the appellate authority to take a decision on the statutory

WP(C).No.3132 OF 2020(N) 3 appeal at the earliest and that until the final decision is rendered by the appellate authority in the statutory appeal, coercive steps for recovery and collection of the impugned tax shall be kept in abeyance in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has also dealt with the reasons for taking such a view for making such an interim arrangement pending disposal of the main appeal by the statutory appellate authority concerned. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has been followed by this Court in a series of other cases as in the judgment dated 10.1.2020 in W.P.(C).No.523/2020. Accordingly, following the line of directions and orders already passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 as well as various other judgments rendered by this Court, following the said directions and orders of the Division Bench in the matter of the interim arrangement till the disposal of the main statutory appeal, etc., following orders and directions are issued: It is ordered that the 2nd appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P3 appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay and within a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by the said appellate

WP(C).No.3132 OF 2020(N) 4 authority. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P3-appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the abovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS

WP(C).No.3132 OF 2020(N) 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED FORM NO.35 OBTAINED ONE FILING OF THE APPEAL FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACT AND GROUNDS IN THE STATUTORY APPEAL EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED IN THE STATUTORY APPEAL EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER THREATENING RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →