M/S. POABS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/28233/2019HC KeralaKLHC01073633201924 October 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) must consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petition (Ext.P6) within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, recovery steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P5) for the amounts confirmed by the revised assessment order (Ext.P3) were to be kept in abeyance until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the validity of the revised assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Poabs Enterprises Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging recovery steps initiated by the respondents. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P4) along with a stay petition (Ext.P6) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against a revised assessment order (Ext.P3). The petitioner contended that recovery actions were being taken even before the stay petition was considered. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment year(s) are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents can initiate recovery steps for amounts confirmed by a revised assessment order when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the appellate authority). Assessee's Contention: Recovery steps were being taken prematurely, before the consideration of the stay petition filed against the revised assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the premature recovery steps. The revenue was represented by the Government Pleader.

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 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28233 OF 2019(D) PETITIONER: M/S. POABS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA-689106, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.JOSEPH JACOB. BY ADVS. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY SRI.T.SANJAY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE I, THIRUVALLA, VAISHNAVAM ARCADE, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA-689101. OTHER PRESENT: SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.28233 OF 2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P3 revised assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P6 stay petition before the 1st 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.P3 revised assessment order

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. 1st respondent shall consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P6 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

Recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P5 Demand Notice for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 revised assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

WP(C).No.28233 OF 2019 3

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.28233 OF 2019 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.PR.CIT/KTM/TECH/263(ACIT-TVLA)/2018-19 DATED 25.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.TVLA/C- 1/AAECP8969J/2015-16 DATED 04.09.2018 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 02.08.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE F.NO.TVLA/C- 1/AAECP8969J/2018-19 DATED 15.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24.09.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT P4 APPEAL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →