MINAR ALLOYS AND FORGINGS (P) LTD, vs. THE ASST .COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32205/2019HC KeralaKLHC01084128201928 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. Firstly, the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Secondly, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passed orders on the stay petition and communicated them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for further action. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the expeditious disposal of the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Minar Alloys and Forgings (P) Ltd, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's grievance is that recovery steps are being initiated for the amounts confirmed in the assessment order even before the stay petition is considered. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions regarding the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether recovery steps can be initiated against the petitioner for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order before a decision is taken on the stay petition filed along with the appeal? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that recovery steps are being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority has had an opportunity to consider the stay petition. They seek to prevent such actions until a decision on their appeal and stay is made. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue. The Standing Counsel appeared 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.32205 OF 2019(A) PETITIONER: MINAR ALLOYS AND FORGINGS (P) LTD, NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A. MOHAMMED SHAFI. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST .COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, PALAKKAD-678 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR-680 001 OTHER PRESENT: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES 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.32205 OF 2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 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 Standing Counsel 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 to 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.

WP(C).No.32205 OF 2019 3

3.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.32205 OF 2019 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 02.12.2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2009-10 DATED 16.01.2017. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2017.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →