PRASANNAKUMARAN UNNITHAN CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/1340/2020HC KeralaKLHC01003809202017 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner in his appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned assessment order were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself but ensured that the petitioner would not face recovery actions while the stay application was pending adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prasannakumaran Unnithan Chandrasekhara Pillai, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the initiation of coercive recovery proceedings by the assessing authority while his appeal and stay petition were pending. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The grievance was that despite the pending stay petition, the Income Tax Officer had commenced recovery actions for the disputed amounts. The petitioner was represented by counsel, and the respondents were represented by a standing counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether coercive recovery proceedings can be initiated by the assessing authority during the pendency of a stay petition filed along with an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the assessing authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery should be held in abeyance until the stay petition is decided, as initiating such steps prematurely would prejudice their appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed 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 FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 27TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1340 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: PRASANNAKUMARAN UNNITHAN CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI AGED 60 YEARS S/O. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C. B. ELECTRICALS, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA - 690504. BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.RENOY VINCENT SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR SMT.FEMY ANN JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE, CHUNGAM, ALAPPUZHA - 688011. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, LAL BAHADUR SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.1340 OF 2020(N) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 1340 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment 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 petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

Heard Sri.Aswin Gopakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned 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.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 application without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 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.1340 OF 2020(N) 3 With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS

WP(C).No.1340 OF 2020(N) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED FORM NO.35 OBTAINED ON E-FILING OF THE INCOME TAX APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 13.1.2020 FILLED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →