EQUITY INTELLIGENCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/4618/2020HC KeralaKLHC01012631202018 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's appeal had been pending since 22.02.2020, along with an interim prayer, and had not even been numbered. Considering that the petitioner could not be left without a remedy, especially when a demand notice had been issued, the Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the prayer in IA Ext.P6 expeditiously, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the operation of the demand Ext.P10 be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the application for stay. This interim order was specifically for the period until the stay application was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Equity Intelligence India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the inaction of the Income Tax Authority in not taking up its appeal and interim application against an assessment order dated 27.12.2019. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner received a demand notice dated 12.02.2020 for payment of the disputed amount. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court due to the delay in processing its appeal and the issuance of the demand notice. The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department suggested disposing of the matter with a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal and stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the inaction of the Income Tax Authority in processing the appeal and interim application filed by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 27.12.2019. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Authority's inaction in taking up its appeal and interim application, coupled with the issuance of a demand notice during the pendency of these proceedings, warranted judicial intervention. The petitioner sought a direction for expeditious disposal of its appeal and stay application. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that the matter could be resolved by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal and stay application in accordance with the law.

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 AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 29TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4618 OF 2020(B) PETITIONER: EQUITY INTELLIGENCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ABHILASH VARGHESE, 5TH FLOOR, AREEKAL MANSION, MANORAMA JUNCTION, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI, CENTRE REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOCHI, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. BY SRI JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4618 OF 2020(B) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has chosen to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the inaction of the Income Tax Authority in not taking up the appeal as also the interim application preferred against the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 (Ext.P2), and during its pendency have been served with a demand to pay the amount vide letter dated 12.02.2020 (Ext.P10).

3.

Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax, submits that the matter can be disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to take a decision on the appeal and the stay application, in accordance with law.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, without expressing any opinion on merits, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner's appeal is pending since 22.02.2020 along with interim prayer, which has not been even numbered, the petitioner cannot be WP(C).No.4618 OF 2020(B) 3 rendered remedyless, particularly when Ext.P10 demand during the interregnum has been issued. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the prayer in IA Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time, the operation of the demand Ext.P10 is ordered to be kept in abeyance. This interim order is only till a decision is taken on the application for stay. AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Skk//22022020

WP(C).No.4618 OF 2020(B) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 27.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.6 OF 2016 DATED 29.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 27.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED NIL SUBMITTED ON 22.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT DATED 22.1.2020 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED NIL FILED ON 28.1.2020 BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 28.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 22.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY 22.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.2.2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE RECTIFICATION PETITION EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →