M/S. HITECH AGENCY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/1841/2020HC KeralaKLHC01005443202023 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 take up the stay application (Ext.P-3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P-2) and pass orders on it without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until such orders were passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order were to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather ensured that the petitioner's right to have the stay application considered was protected, and that recovery actions were paused pending that consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Hitech Agency, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging coercive recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer (Ward 2(2), Thrissur). The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P-2) and a stay petition (Ext.P-3) against an order (Ext.P-1) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's grievance was that despite the pending stay petition, the assessing authority was proceeding with recovery of disputed amounts. The Income Tax Department was represented by its Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether coercive recovery proceedings can be initiated during the pendency of a stay petition before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the assessing authority). Arguments: Assessee: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings should not have been initiated while their stay application was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). They sought to halt these proceedings until a decision was made on their stay application. Revenue: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for a stay on coercive recovery, as the court heard both sides and proceeded to pass an order.

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 THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 3RD MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1841 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER: M/S. HITECH AGENCY, 18/417, NEAR SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, MARAIKAL KANNARA, THRISSUR-680 652, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SASI.V.B. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 021. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH , STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1841 of 2020 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2020

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P-1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P-2 appeal and Ext.P-3 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.

2.

Heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Government of India, appearing for the respondents.

3.

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 authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on ..3.. those applications 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. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG ..4..

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →