THOMAS DANIEL, vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX,

WP(C)/2269/2020HC KeralaKLHC01006416202028 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in the interest of justice, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The appellate authority was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without undue delay, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thomas Daniel, is aggrieved by the coercive recovery proceedings initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of disputed amounts. This action was taken during the pendency of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petitions (Ext.P3) filed against an order (Ext.P1). The petitioner contends that recovery proceedings should not have been initiated while his stay applications were under consideration. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking intervention in the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessing authority was justified in initiating coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts when the petitioner's appeal and stay petitions were pending before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the assessing authority during pendency of appeal and stay applications). The petitioner argued that coercive recovery steps should not have been taken while his stay applications were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The revenue's contention is 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2269 OF 2020(G) PETITIONER: THOMAS DANIEL, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.DANIEL THOMAS, INDIKATTIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 698. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVALLA - 689 101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM - 686 001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.2269 OF 2020(G) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 2269 of 2020 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Exts.P3 stay petitions. 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.

Heard Sri.Harisankar V. Menon , the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmin, the learned Government Pleader 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 2nd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P-3 stay application filed in Ext.P-2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorized representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those

WP(C).No.2269 OF 2020(G) 3 applications without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delay condonation and 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 Nsd JUDGE

WP(C).No.2269 OF 2020(G) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE HE 2ND RESPONDENT 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →