ANIYAN MATHEW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/35327/2019HC KeralaKLHC01091523201920 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, following its own judgment in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer [2014(2) KHC 360], quashed the conditional order of stay (Ext.P9). The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to pass fresh orders on the stay application. The fresh order is to be passed after hearing the petitioner and taking into account the observations made in the cited judgment. The 2nd respondent is mandated to pass these fresh orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The core reasoning is that conditional stay orders must be reasoned, and the impugned order lacked such reasoning. The issue of the merits of the appeal itself or the quantum of the assessed demand was not decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Aniyan Mathew, filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P9, a conditional order of stay passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [2nd respondent]. This order was in relation to a stay application filed along with an appeal against an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the order did not provide any reasons for imposing a condition requiring payment of a portion of the demanded amount for granting a stay on the remaining amount, pending the appeal's disposal. The petitioner relied on the decision in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer [2014(2) KHC 360]. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). The assessment year(s) are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the conditional order of stay passed by the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) is sustainable in law, given that it allegedly lacks reasons for imposing a partial payment as a condition for stay pending appeal? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning the principles of natural justice and reasoned orders). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that Ext.P9 order is unsustainable as it fails to provide any justification for requiring the petitioner to pay a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for granting a stay on the balance, pending the appeal. Reliance was placed on the High Court's decision in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer [2014(2) KHC 360]. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.

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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.35327 OF 2019(M) PETITIONER/S: SHRI.ANIYAN MATHEW S/O M.V.MATHEW,MANGALATH HOUSE, CHEROOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680008. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1),RANGE-1,AAYAKAR BHAVAN SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR THRISSUR-680001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.35327 OF 2019(M) 2

JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 conditional order of stay passed by the 2nd respondent Tribunal in a stay application filed along with an appeal against an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P9 order does not give any reason as to why the petitioner was required to pay a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for grant of stay of the remaining amount, pending disposal of the appeal. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer [2014(2) KHC 360].

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and following the judgment of this Court in Archana Agencies (cited supra), I dispose this writ petition by quashing Ext.P9 order and directing the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders in the said application, after hearing the petitioner and taking note of the observations in the judgment referred above. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.35327 OF 2019(M) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDMENT DATED 27.11.2018 IN W.P(C)NO.38336/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ASST.ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ASST.ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL e-filed on 22.1.2019 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 21.1.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL e-filed ON 22.1.2019 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE asst.year 2012-13 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 21.1.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2019 IN W.P(C)NO.5490 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.T.A.NOS.306 & 307/TCR/CIT(A)/18-19 DATED 29.11.2019. sd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →