MOIDEEN.V vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/31399/2019HC KeralaKLHC01082083201928 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court held that the recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order should be kept in abeyance until the appellate authority passes reasoned orders on the stay petition. The 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petition within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The operative direction was to keep recovery steps in abeyance until the stay petition is decided. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court provided a procedural resolution.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Moideen.V, an individual, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery steps initiated by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode, against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tirur. The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being taken even before the stay petition was considered. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the respondents are premature and ought to be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the assessing and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken by the respondents for the recovery of amounts confirmed by the assessment order even prior to the consideration of the stay petition filed before the appellate authority. The petitioner relied on the general principles of natural justice and the appellate process under the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

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 THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.31399 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONER: MOIDEEN.V AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KUNHAMED, VALLIKKADAN HOUSE, PARABILANGADI, EDARIKKODE, MALAPPURAM-676501. BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER OFFICE OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD-3, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR-676101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE. OTHER PRESENT: SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.31399 OF 2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

1.

The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

2.

Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

3.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition

WP(C).No.31399 OF 2019 3 together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.31399 OF 2019 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 24.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF EXT.P2 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →