M.A. MUHEYIDDIN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-I)

WP(C)/12454/2012HC KeralaKLHC01054534201230 May 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON6 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an order admitting the writ petition for hearing. It does not contain the Tribunal's decision or the High Court's final ruling on the merits of the case. The order simply states that the writ petition (civil) was heard on May 30, 2012, and on the same day, the court delivered the following order. However, the content of that order is not included in the excerpt. Therefore, the High Court's findings, reasoning, ratio, and operative directions are not available in this text. No issue was expressly left undecided as the judgment is not a final decision on the merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M.A. Muheyiddin, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kochi Branch. The ITAT's order was in relation to an appeal concerning the petitioner's income tax assessment. The respondents in the writ petition are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the ITAT itself, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central). The writ petition was filed seeking admission and was heard by the High Court on May 30, 2012. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the ITAT's order is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to admit the writ petition filed by the assessee, M.A. Muheyiddin, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The specific grounds for challenging the ITAT's order are not detailed in the provided text. The assessee, through their advocates, sought admission of the writ petition. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel for Income Tax, was also present. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by either side beyond the fact that the petition was presented for admission and heard. Therefore, the core question is whether the High Court found sufficient grounds to entertain the writ petition against the ITAT's decision.

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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2012/9TH JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 12454 of 2012 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, HAFIL, JUMA MASJID ROAD, PANAYIKULAM P.O., N.PARAVOOR VIA., PIN-683 511, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-I), ERNAKULAM- 682 013. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, KOCHI-682 001. 3. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 037, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. REGISTRAR. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 011. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 12454 of 2012 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2009. EXT.P1A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2009. EXT.P1B COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2009. EXT.P1C COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2009. EXT.P1D COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2009. EXT.P1E COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2009. EXT.P1F COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2009. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2010. EXT.P2A COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2010. EXT.P2B COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2010. EXT.P2C COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2010. EXT.P2D COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2010. EXT.P2E COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2010. EXT.P2F COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2010. WP(C).No. 12454 of 2012 (F) EXT.P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/04/2011. EXT.P3A COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/04/2011. EXT.P3B COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/04/2011. EXT.P3C COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/04/2011. EXT.P3D COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/04/2011. EXT.P3E COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/04/2011. EXT.P3F COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/04/2011. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 07/05/2012. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 12454 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2012

JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by Ext.P1 series assessment orders passed by the first respondent, the petitioner approached the second respondent challenging the same which did not turn to be fruitful as desired as evident from Ext.P2 series orders, whereby, some cases were dismissed, though some of the cases were allowed in part. It was in the said circumstances, that the petitioner has sought to challenge the above orders in the second round, by filing Ext.P3 series appeals before the third respondent/Tribunal. It also remains a fact that the petitioner has approached the fourth respondent by filing a petition under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act for enabling the petitioner to have the benefit of stay from satisfying the impugned liability during the pendency of appeals before the Tribunal.

The said application dated 24.10.2011 was considered by the fourth respondent, who dismissed the same as per Ext.P4 -2- order dated 07.05.2012, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the outstanding liability on 25.05.2012 and to clear the balance amount by way of monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs), which forms the basis for challenge in this writ petition.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 as well.

On going through the materials on record, it is seen that the appeals were preferred by the petitioner before the third respondent as early as on 14.04.2011, while the petition under Section 220 (6) was preferred before the fourth respondent only on 24.10.2011. There is no case for the petitioner that any interlocutory application for stay was preferred before the third respondent, though the appeal was pending from 14.04.2011 (probably for the reason that a petition was already filed before the fourth respondent under Section 220 (6), which however came to be dismissed as per Ext.P4 order only on 07.05.2012).

However, taking note of the facts and circumstances and that, the appeals are pending consideration before the third -3- respondent for more than one year, this Court finds that it is for the third respondent to consider the appeals and pass final orders on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. With the above observations, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Kp/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →