K. KUTHUBUDHEEN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/626/2020HC KeralaKLHC01001903202013 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the petitioner's plea as per the Ext. P3 stay application. The 2nd respondent was instructed to pass considered orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, until orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on the stay application, further steps for the enforcement of the impugned Ext. P1 order were ordered to be kept in abeyance by the respondents. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself but ensured their timely consideration. The principle here is that courts can direct authorities to expedite proceedings and maintain status quo pending such expedited decisions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K. Kuthubudheen, is aggrieved by an order marked as Ext. P1. To challenge this order, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext. P2) before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and simultaneously filed a stay petition (Ext. P3) seeking a stay on the enforcement of Ext. P1. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala by filing a Writ Petition (Civil) seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal and stay petition expeditiously. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 and TPS, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment year(s) are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to dispose of the appeal (Ext. P2) and the stay petition (Ext. P3) expeditiously, as per the petitioner's prayer? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to compel the 2nd respondent to dispose of the pending appeal and stay petition without undue delay. The petitioner relies on the general principles of expeditious disposal of appeals and stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appeared and was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on any authorities by the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

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 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 23RD POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.626 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: K. KUTHUBUDHEEN AGED 70 YEARS KALODI HOUSE, PARAMMAL, CHERUSHOLA P. O., MALAPPURAM - 676 510. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TIRUR - 676101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No. 626 of 2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ========================= WP(C).NO.626 of 2020 ========================= Dated this the 13th day of January, 2020

J U D G M E N T The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “ i) To direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext. P2 appeal and Ext. P3 stay petition expeditiously by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”

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

Being aggrieved by impugned Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent without delay and has also filed Ext. P3 stay application in Ext. P2 appeal seeking stay of the enforcement of the impugned Ext. P1 order.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent Appellate authority will take up for consideration the plea made by the petitioner, as per Ext p3 stay application and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorized representative/counsel if any, will pass considered orders thereon 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 passed by the 2nd respondent on Ext.P3 stay application, further steps for enforcement of impugned Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance by the respondents concerned. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. (Sd/-) ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE LU

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/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 FOR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. // True Copy // PA To Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →