SHYLA PUSHPAN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/34726/2019HC KeralaKLHC01090417201918 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Ext.P6 series of orders were not vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or erroneous exercise of discretion by the statutory authority. The Court found that the 2nd respondent had provided reasons for requiring the petitioners to pay 15% of the total demand as a condition for staying the recovery of the balance amount pending disposal of the appeals, as directed by the previous judgment (Ext.P5). Therefore, the writ petition challenging these orders failed and was dismissed. However, taking note of the petitioners' submission regarding financial hardship, the Court granted a limited modification, directing that if the petitioners discharge the liability in two equal monthly installments commencing from January 20, 2020, it would be treated as compliance with the directions in Ext.P6 series of orders. The challenge to the stay orders was otherwise dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Shyla Pushpan and her children, filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P6 series of stay orders issued by the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)). These orders were passed in stay applications filed alongside appeals against assessment orders under the Income Tax Act. The petitioners had previously approached the High Court, which, by Ext.P5 judgment, directed the 2nd respondent (Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) to reconsider the stay applications and provide reasons for demanding partial payment as a condition for staying recovery of the balance demand pending appeal. The impugned Ext.P6 series of orders were issued pursuant to this direction, requiring the petitioners to pay 15% of the total demand in two equal monthly installments starting from December 2019 as a condition for stay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ext.P6 series of stay orders passed by the 2nd respondent are vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or erroneous exercise of discretion by the statutory authority, considering the directions in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners challenged the Ext.P6 series of stay orders, arguing they were passed erroneously. They relied on the previous High Court judgment (Ext.P5) which directed the respondent to provide reasons for demanding partial payment as a condition for stay. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the legality of the stay orders. However, the revenue, through the Joint Commissioner, issued the impugned orders pursuant to the High Court's directions.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.34726 OF 2019(M) PETITIONER/S: 1 SHYLA PUSHPAN,W/O.PUSHPAN KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANNUR THRISSUR-680021. 2 K.P.PUSHYA D/O.PUSHPAN, KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR-680021. 3 K.P.SHAN S/O.PUSHPAN, KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR-680021. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SMT.PHILIA KOSHY RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680001. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), THRISSUR-680001. 4 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TRO AND TECH), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 5 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (4), THRISSUR-680001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.34726 OF 2019(M) 2

JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 series of stay orders passed by the 3rd respondent in stay applications filed along with the appeals against the orders of assessment under the Income Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner that he had approached this Court against earlier interim orders passed by the said respondent and this Court had, by Ext.P5 judgment, directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the stay applications and pass orders giving reasons as to why the petitioner was required to pay a portion of the amount as a condition for stay of recovery of the balance amounts pending disposal of the appeals. Ext.P6 series of orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the directions in Ext.P5 judgment and on a perusal of the same, I find that the 2nd respondent has given reasons as to why the petitioner was required to pay 15% of the total demand in two equal monthly instalments commencing from December 2019 as a condition of stay of recovery of balance amounts pending disposal of the appeals. Under such circumstances, I do not find that Ext.P6 series of orders to be vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or erroneous exercise of discretion by the statutory authority. The writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 series of orders, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards financial hardship, I direct that if the petitioner discharges the liability pursuant to Ext.P6 series of orders in two equal monthly instalments commencing from 20.01.2020, then the same shall be treated as in compliance with the WP(C).No.34726 OF 2019(M) 3 directions in Ext.P6 series of orders. Save for this limited modification the challenge to Ext.P6 series of orders in this writ petition is otherwise dismissed. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.34726 OF 2019(M) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 3.12.2018. EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 3.12.2018. EXHIBIT P1 B TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 3.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 B TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 5.3.2019 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 5.3.2019 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 B TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 5.3.2019 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.8.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.8.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.8.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.26095/2019 DATED 10.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2019 WP(C).No.34726 OF 2019(M) 5 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. sd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →