JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPORATION LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/35580/2010HC KeralaKLHC01077557201006 December 2010Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (4th respondent) to consider and pass orders on the interlocutory application (Ext.P32) seeking stay, as far as possible, on December 31, 2010, or the adjourned date. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the hearing of the interim application, with a clear indication that non-appearance by the petitioner would allow the appellate authority to dismiss the stay petition. The respondents (revenue authorities) were directed to keep in abeyance coercive recovery steps for the amounts covered by the assessment and penalty orders until the ITAT issued orders on the stay application. The principle established is that pending a decision on a stay petition before the ITAT, coercive recovery can be temporarily halted, provided the assessee cooperates with the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd., is challenging assessment orders for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 and penalty orders under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act. The first appellate authority confirmed these orders. The petitioner filed further appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and an interlocutory application for stay of recovery of tax and penalty. The petitioner's grievance is that coercive recovery steps, including freezing of bank accounts, are being pursued despite the pending appeals and stay petition before the ITAT. The ITAT had posted the interim application for consideration on December 31, 2010.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider and dispose of the stay petition pending before it? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) 2. Whether coercive recovery steps should be stayed pending the disposal of the stay petition by the ITAT? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery steps were being pursued despite the pendency of appeals and stay petitions before the ITAT. They sought a direction to the ITAT to dispose of the stay petition and a stay on recovery until then. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay petition or the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C

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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35580 of 2010(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPORATION LTD., 32/24901-B, RASHTRA DEEPIKA BUILDING, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.BABY MATHEW. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS), OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, KERA BHAVAN, COCHIN-11 3. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN-18 4. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35580 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010

J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Assessment with respect to the years 2004-05 to 2008-09 was completed against the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner was also imposed with penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act with respect to the above assessment years as evidenced from Ext.P3 to P7. In the first appeals filed by the petitioner against the above said orders, the assessments were confirmed by virtue of Ext.P11 to P15 and the penalty orders were confirmed by virtue of Ext.P16 to P20 orders. The petitioner had now approached the 4th respondent by filing further appeals as evidenced from Ext.P22 to P31. Ext.P32 is the common interlocutory application filed seeking stay of collection of the tax amount as well as penalty, pending disposal of the appeal.

-2-

2.

It is submitted that the appeals and the stay petition are pending consideration and disposal before the 4th respondent Tribunal. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, coercive steps of recovery is being pursued against the petitioner and it is stated that prohibitory orders have already been issued to freeze the bank account of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is seeking a limited relief for a direction to the appellate Tribunal to consider and dispose of the matter and till then to stay the recovery steps.

3.

It is evident from Ext.P33 notice that the 4th respondent Tribunal had posted the interim application for consideration on 31.12.2010. Under the above circumstances I am of the view that till the 4th respondent takes a decision on the interim application the recovery steps can be directed to be kept in abeyance.

4.

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on -3- Ext.P32 interlocutory application filed seeking stay, as far as possible on 31.12.2010 itself or on any other date to which the matter will be adjourned. The petitioner shall co- operate with hearing of the interim application on the date on which it is posted. It is made clear that if there is any non appearance on the part of the petitioner, the appellate authority will be at liberty to dismiss the stay petition.

5.

The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance coercive steps of recovery for realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P1 and P3 to P7 orders, which were already confirmed by the first appellate authority, till such time orders are issued by the 4th respondent as directed above.

6.

The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent for proper compliance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →