MUSLIM SERVICE SOCIETY vs. THE ASST.COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32144/2007HC KeralaKLHC01070813200730 October 2007Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Ext.P5) did not warrant any interference. The Tribunal had considered the prima facie case of the appellant and its financial position before directing the remittance of Rs. 15 lakhs in installments. The Court noted that this amount was suggested by the petitioner itself. However, taking into account the submissions made, the Court modified the installment dates, directing that the installments due on 31/10/2007 and 30/11/2007 would be payable on 15/11/2007 and 15/12/2007 respectively. Subject to this modification, the writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muslim Service Society, represented by its General Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order (Ext.P5) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had granted a stay on the demand of over Rs. 52 lakhs, subject to the petitioner remitting Rs. 15 lakhs in three installments of Rs. 5 lakhs each. The petitioner argued that the ITAT considered the prima facie case and financial position. The High Court noted that the Rs. 15 lakh figure was suggested by the petitioner itself. The writ petition sought interference with the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Ext.P5), imposing a condition of remitting Rs. 15 lakhs out of Rs. 52 lakhs in three installments for granting a stay, is sustainable in law? Assessee's Contention (Petitioner): The petitioner argued that the ITAT's order was based on a consideration of the prima facie case and the petitioner's financial position. The petitioner implicitly contended that the conditions imposed were reasonable or at least considered relevant factors. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue (respondents 1 and 2).

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 ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2007 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1929 WP(C).No. 32144 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MUSLIM SERVICE SOCIETY, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT-673 001, REPRESENTED BY T.K.ABDUL KAREEM, GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(1), CALICUT. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-I, CALICUT-I. 3. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 32144 OF 2007 B ===================== Dated this the 30th day of October, 2007

J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal granting stay sought for by the petitioner, on condition that out of more than Rs.52 lakhs that is due, petitioner should remit Rs.15 lakhs and that too in three instalments of Rs.5 lakhs each.

2.

On a reading of Ext.P5, I notice that the Tribunal has considered the prima facie case of the appellant and the financial position of the appellant. Thus, after considering all these relevant aspects, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to remit Rs.15 lakhs and that too in instalments. In fact, order shows that this figure was suggested by the petitioner itself. Ext.P5 does not call for any interference.

3.

However, taking into account the submissions that are made, I direct that the instalments payable on 31/10/2007 and WPC No.32144/07 : 2 : 30/11/2007 will be payable only on 15/11/2007 and 15/12/2007 respectively. Subject to the above modification, writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →