SM SILKS AND SAREES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/2585/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007357202030 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, ordered that the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) shall take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Ext.P3). The appellate authority was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and 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. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P2) for enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) will be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions. No specific findings were made on the merits of the impugned order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, SM Silks and Sarees, is challenging an order (Ext.P1) passed by the assessing authority. Following this, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While the stay petition was pending, the petitioner received a demand notice (Ext.P2) from the assessing authority for the recovery of disputed amounts related to the impugned order. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking relief regarding the pending stay petition and the demand notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Ext.P3)? (Question of procedure and administrative action) Assessee's contention: The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Sri.K.Srikumar, argued that their grievance stems from the issuance of a demand notice (Ext.P2) for recovery of disputed amounts while their stay petition (Ext.P4) was pending before the appellate authority. They sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application. Revenue's contention: Sri.Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel for the respondents, was heard. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the issues.

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 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 10TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2585 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER: SM SILKS AND SAREES 17/1319 A,MULLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA-688010, REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATE PARTNER SANTHOSH.S. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA-688010. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOTTAYAM-686001. SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.2585 OF 2020(W) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2585 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, Ext.P2 demand notice has been issued for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

Heard Sri.K.Srikumar, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.K.Manoj Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

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.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 that application without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this WP(C).No.2585 OF 2020(W) 3 judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid Ext.P4 stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P-2 demand notice for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd

WP(C).No.2585 OF 2020(W) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 27.12.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 03.01.2020. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 22.01.2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR URGENT HEARING.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →