JOHNY MATHEW, vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/1496/2020HC KeralaKLHC01004114202020 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in connection with the appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite its decision. The principle is that appellate remedies should be pursued and interim relief should be sought from the appellate authority, with the court intervening to ensure timely disposal of such applications and to prevent prejudice during the pendency of the interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Johny Mathew, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging coercive recovery proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against an order (Ext.P1). The grievance is that despite the pending stay petition, the assessing authority has commenced recovery actions for the disputed amounts. The matter was heard by the High Court on January 20, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene to halt coercive recovery proceedings when an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated prematurely, while their appeal and stay application were still pending before the appellate authority. They sought a stay on these recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the revenue was represented by a standing counsel, but it does not explicitly detail their arguments. However, the court's order implies that the revenue did not object to the directions issued.

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 MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 30TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1496 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER: JOHNY MATHEW, AGED 63 YEARS ARAMBANKUDY HOUSE, NADUKANI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686691. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMANY SRI.B.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003. 3 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.1496 OF 2020(J) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.1496 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 20th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 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.

2.

Heard Sri.P.S. Soman Pulladan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned standing counsel 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 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 applications without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delay condonation and stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance.

WP(C).No.1496 OF 2020(J) 3 With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS Nsd //truec copy// PA to Judge JUDGE

WP(C).No.1496 OF 2020(J) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014560144(1) DATED 25/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 26/01/2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 08/02/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1019382011(1)/2470 DATED 24/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →