M/S.NETWORK SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/20978/2013HC KeralaKLHC01064170201329 August 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 pages

AI SummaryNot Applicable

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from the cause list and does not contain the operative part of the judgment or the High Court's decision. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, ratio decidendi, and operative directions of the High Court on the issues raised by the petitioner cannot be determined from this text. The judgment was listed for admission on August 29, 2013, and the court delivered its order on the same day. However, the content of that order is not available.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Network Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The petitioner is aggrieved by the ITAT's decision, which likely upheld or modified an earlier order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The revenue authorities involved are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition also impleads the State Bank of India and Axis Bank as respondents, suggesting a potential issue related to bank accounts or financial transactions. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the dispute or the amount in dispute are not explicitly detailed in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in its order concerning the assessment of the petitioner? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner, M/s. Network Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., is challenging the order of the ITAT. Specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the provided text. However, the filing of a writ petition indicates a grievance against the ITAT's decision, likely pertaining to a substantive issue of income tax law or its application. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue authorities, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), are the respondents. Their contentions are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The revenue would typically defend the orders passed by the lower authorities and the ITAT.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 20978 of 2013

SP NO.25/COCH/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/7TH BHADRA, 1935 WP(C).No. 20978 of 2013 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER : -------------------------------------------------- M/S.NETWORK SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. A-3, PERIYAR, TECHNOPARK KARYAVATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. N.JEHANGIR. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), AYAKKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, (BLOCK C-I & C-II) KENDRIYA BHAVAN, OPP. CSEZ, KAKKANAD COCHIN-682 037. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, TECHNOPARK BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. AXIS BANK CONDOR PLAZA, PATTOM PALACE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20978 of 2013 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.27.11.2012 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD.23.2.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD.23.2.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AAACN7419B/CIR.1(1)/TVM DTD.6.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN STAY PETITION IN SP NO.25/COCH/2013 DTD.5.4.2013 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AAACN7419B/CIR.1(1)/TVM DTD.21.8.2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.30.3.2013 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD.29.4.2013 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7(A) : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD.29.4.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR CBDT VIDE F.NO.404/10/2009-ITCC DTD.1.12.2009. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20978 OF 2013 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of August, 2013

JUDGMENT Ext.P1 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been challenged in Ext.P2 appeal. Ext.P2(a) petition for stay of recovery of the disputed tax stands dismissed by Ext.P4 order.

Ext.P6 order of assessment also under the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been challenged in Ext.P7 appeal. The appeal is accompanied by Ext.P7(a) petition for stay of recovery of the disputed tax. The petition for stay is yet to be considered.

The petitioner has now been served with Ext.P5 demand notice in respect of the amount due under Exts.P1 and P6 orders of assessment. The petitioner points out that he cannot be treated as a defaulter so long as the statutory appeals are pending and not yet considered.

A detailed consideration of the merits of the case at this juncture would prejudice the contentions of either parties in the statutory appeals pending. I however feel that a conditional order of stay can be granted in respect of both the orders of 2 WP(C) No. 20978/2013 assessment pending disposal of the statutory appeals.

I direct the third respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal and the second respondent to consider Ext.P7 appeal. Every endeavour shall be made to dispose of Exts.P2 and P7 appeals as expeditiously as possible.

The coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P5 demand notice shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits one third of the amount demanded thereunder within a period of one month. The chalan after deposit of the amount shall be produced before the first respondent for the order of stay to be operative. Ext.P4 order is modified accordingly and the Writ Petition is disposed of. V. CHITAMBARESH

JUDGE ncd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →