THREE STAR GRANITES PVT.LTD. vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/7972/2012HC KeralaKLHC01050053201223 May 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON6 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (ITAT) to serve a certified copy of its order dated March 29, 2012, to the petitioner forthwith, if it had not been served already. The Court stated that it would be open for the petitioner to pursue further remedies if they were aggrieved by the ITAT's order in any manner. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the ITAT's decision to partly allow the appeal and remit the matter, nor does it address the specific grounds of appeal or the revenue's arguments. The primary relief granted was the expeditious supply of the certified copy of the ITAT's order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Three Star Granites Pvt. Ltd., is challenging an order related to its assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Following an adverse order from the assessing authority, the petitioner filed an appeal and a stay application before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). As coercive recovery steps were initiated, the petitioner had previously approached the High Court of Kerala, which directed the ITAT to consider the stay application while staying recovery proceedings. The petitioner's grievance in the present writ petition is the delay in the ITAT passing a final order on their appeal, despite the matter being heard on March 21, 2012. The petitioner later discovered an order dated March 29, 2012, on the ITAT website, indicating their appeal was partly allowed and remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT has unduly delayed passing a final order on the petitioner's appeal concerning the assessment year 2007-08, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner who is facing recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite the appeal being heard on March 21, 2012, no final order had been communicated to them, and recovery steps were being pursued. They later found an order on the ITAT website dated March 29, 2012, which partly allowed their appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, and they wished to challenge the adverse part of this order and obtain a certified copy. Revenue's Contention: The standing counsel for the Income Tax Department appeared on behalf of the first respondent. No specific arguments from the revenue are recorded regarding the delay or the merits of the ITAT's order, other than their appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 7972 of 2012 (V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THREE STAR GRANITES PVT.LTD., 3/113, THAYYOOR P.O., PAZHAVOOR ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR-680 584 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.P.BHASI. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I(1), THRISSUR-680 001. 2. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM-682 037. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.7972/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 9.2.2012 IN WPC NO.3332/12. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN STAY PETITION DATED 2.3.2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.7972 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2012

JUDGMENT Fixation of liability under Section 143(3) of the IT Act in respect of the assessment year 2007-08 is the subject matter involved. Pursuant to the adverse order passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner in the course of remedy before the Tribunal, filed an appeal and an application for stay. Since coercive steps were pursued with regard to the assessment made, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3332/2012 which culminated in Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the third respondent was directed to consider and pass orders on the I.A. for stay, simultaneously intercepting the coercive proceedings in the meanwhile.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the matter was finally heard on 21/03/2012, but no final order has been passed to the knowledge of the petitioner, nor has it been communicated at any point of time. However, since the concerned respondents are proceeding with steps for recovery, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court by filing this writ petition.

Heard the standing counsel for the IT department who entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now come across an order stated as passed on 29/03/2012 by the second respondent Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner has obtained it from the web site. Learned counsel submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been partly allowed by the Tribunal, by remitting the matter for fresh consideration. It is also stated that the petitioner wants to examine the matter in detail and would like to challenge the same to the extent the same is not allowed by the Tribunal, simultaneously seeking for a direction to serve a certified copy to the petitioner.

After hearing both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to serve a certified copy of the order as aforesaid to the petitioner forthwith, if the same is not served so far. It will be open for the petitioner to pursue/work out remedies, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved of the order in any manner. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

sv.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →