T.C.VAVACHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4

WP(C)/2341/2015HC KeralaKLHC01048181201522 January 2015Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had a duty to consider and dispose of the stay application filed by the petitioner. The Court found that the ITAT had failed to do so, thereby failing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The High Court observed that the petitioner had approached the ITAT seeking a stay of recovery proceedings pending appeal. The ITAT's failure to address this application meant that the petitioner was left without a remedy for the interim period. Consequently, the High Court directed the ITAT to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay application filed by the petitioner within a specified period. The Court did not decide on the merits of the underlying appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. T.C. Vavachan, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3/4, Aluva; the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II; and the Assistant Registrar of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The specific order or action under challenge and the assessment year(s) are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history involves the petitioner approaching the High Court via a writ petition after the matter had likely progressed through the Income Tax Department and potentially the appellate authorities.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, through senior counsel, argued that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had failed to consider a specific application for stay filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the ITAT's inaction amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The revenue, represented by its standing counsel, did not have its arguments recorded in the provided text. The question for the court was whether the ITAT's omission to decide the stay application warranted intervention by the High Court.

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 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015/2ND MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2341 of 2015 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SHRI. T.C.VAVACHAN THURUTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM P.O. AMBALAMEDU (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 303. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN BY ADVS.SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3/4 ALUVA - 682 315. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II 6TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN, SRVHS ROAD COCHIN - 682 016. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, IST FLOOR (BLOCK C-I & C-II), KENDRIYA BHAVAN, OPP.CSEZ KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 037. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 2341 of 2015 (P) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2011-12. EXT. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1/10/2014 IN I.T.A NO.34/ALY/CIT-II/2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P3: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 1/1/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P3(a): TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY DATED 1/1/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICES DATED 2/1/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9/1/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19/1/2015 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.2341 OF 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P2 first appellate order passed under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-2012, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal and P3(a) stay petition before the 3rd respondent Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, even before considering Ext.P3(a) stay application, steps have been initiated for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order.

I have heard Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel 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: i. The 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3(a) stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

W.P.(C).NO.2341 OF 2015 2 ii. Recovery steps initiated against the petitioner for realization of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order for the said year shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 3rd respondent passes orders as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. iii. The order to be passed by the 3rd respondent shall be a reasoned one adverting to the contentions of the petitioner regarding existence of a prima facie case for a stay of recovery

pending

disposal

of the appeal/revision. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns

W.P.(C).NO.2341 OF 2015 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →