GEORGE JACOB vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/4876/2019HC KeralaKLHC01012029201918 February 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala acknowledged that the petitioner had filed his appeal and stay petition on time. The Court held that procedural fairness requires the revenue authorities to wait before taking further steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, the Court directed the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the 2nd respondent would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, George Jacob, an assessee, challenged an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with his appeal. The grievance raised in this writ petition is that the revenue authorities are initiating coercive steps for recovery of demand before the appellate authority has had an opportunity to decide on the stay petition. The petitioner has approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to defer coercive steps.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities can initiate coercive steps for recovery of tax demand when an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the appellate authority? (Question of law and procedure) The petitioner contended that he has availed his statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition within the prescribed time. He argued that procedural fairness dictates that coercive steps should be deferred until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. The revenue's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.

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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 4876 of 2019 PETITIONER: GEORGE JACOB AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. JACOB, THEKKEMURIYIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., CHENGANNUR,PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM-686 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOTTAYAM - 686 001 BY. STANDING COUNSEL SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 4876 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU SKA JUDGE

3 WP(C).No. 4876 of 2019

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 31-12-2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 31-01-2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 12-02-2019 RESPONDENT 'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →