PATTAMBI STORES, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3080/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008629202005 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing both sides, ordered that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the 2nd respondent) shall take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The appellate authority was directed to pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order were to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself but directed the appellate authority to expedite the process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pattambi Stores, represented by its Managing Partner, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner's grievance was that despite filing an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against an order (Ext.P1), the assessing authority initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to prevent these recovery actions during the pendency of their stay application. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to prevent coercive recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated during the pendency of their stay petition before the appellate authority, causing prejudice. They sought a direction from the High Court to halt these proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department appeared. No specific arguments for the revenue were 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3080 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER/S: PATTAMBI STORES, OTTUPARA, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR-680590, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. K.K.ABDUL LATHEEF. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR- 680001. 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.3080 OF 2020(H) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 3080 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petitions, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

2.

Heard Smt.Nisha John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department 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 2 nd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P3 stay application filed in Ext.P2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/ counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those applications 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.

WP(C).No.3080 OF 2020(H) 3 With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS

WP(C).No.3080 OF 2020(H) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2019 FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 13.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 13.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY- 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →