SHYLA PUSHPAN, vs. THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/26095/2019HC KeralaKLHC01067570201910 October 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the order Ext.P9 passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) was laconic and bereft of any reasoning, and therefore, could not be legally sustained. The Court quashed Ext.P9 and directed the first respondent to pass fresh orders on the stay petition after hearing the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to appear before the first respondent on 14.11.2019, and the respondent was directed to pass the order within one month thereafter. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order were to be kept in abeyance until the fresh order was passed and communicated. The ratio is that an appellate authority's order on a stay application must contain reasons to be legally valid.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Shyla Pushpan and two others, challenged an order (Ext.P9) passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent. This order was in relation to a stay application filed alongside an appeal against an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. The petitioners' primary contention was that Ext.P9 did not provide any reasons for requiring them to pay 20% of the total demand as a condition for staying the remaining 80% of the demand during the pendency of their appeal. The petitioners relied on the High Court of Kerala's decision in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)) on the stay application, which mandated payment of 20% of the total demand as a condition for stay, is legally sustainable in the absence of any reasons recorded therein, turning on the principles of natural justice and administrative law. Contentions: Assessee: The order Ext.P9 is laconic and lacks any reasoning for imposing the condition of paying 20% of the demand for stay, rendering it unsustainable. They relied on the decision in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer. Revenue: No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/18TH ASWINA, 1941 W.P(C).No.26095 OF 2019(J) PETITIONERS: 1 SHYLA PUSHPAN, AGED 56 YEARS KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANOOR ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-680021. 2 K.P.PUSHYA, KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANOOR ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-680021. 3 K.P.SHAN, KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANOOR ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-680021. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMT.G.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SHRI.ABRAHAM JOB SRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680001. 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.2(4), THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.26095/2019 : 2 :

J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent, in a stay application filed along with an appeal against an order of assessment under the Income Tax Act. The contention of the petitioner is essentially that, in Ext.P9 order, there is no mention of any reason as to why the Appellate Authority deemed it necessary for the petitioners to pay 20% of the total demand, as a condition for stay of the balance 80% of the demand arising from the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners rely on the decision of this Court in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer - [2014 (2) KLT 715].

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

3.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar and also taking note of the decision of this Court cited supra, I find that Ext.P9 order is a W.P.(C).No.26095/2019 : 3 : laconic one bereft of any reasoning, and hence, cannot be legally sustained. I therefore quash Ext.P9 order, and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on the stay petition after hearing the petitioners. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent, at his Office, at 11.00 a.m. on 14.11.2019. The 1st respondent shall pass order in the matter, as directed, within one month thereafter. It is made clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioners by the assessment order, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent, as directed, and the order communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/10/10/19

W.P.(C).No.26095/2019 : 4 :

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 30.01.2013. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 29.07.2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2902/14 DATED 27.06.2014. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.23255/17 DATED 25.07.2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 03.12.2018. EXHIBIT P6 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 03.12.2018. EXHIBIT P6 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 03.12.2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. EXHIBIT P7 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. EXHIBIT P7 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. W.P.(C).No.26095/2019 : 5 : EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P8 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P8 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2019. EXHIBIT P9 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2019. EXHIBIT P9 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2019. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BY THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY FOR FIXATION OF FAIR VALUE. EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE. EXHIBIT P12 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE BUYER BEFORE SUB REGISTRAR FOR CORRECTION OF THE DEED. NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →