M/S. THARIFF BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/41386/2018HC KeralaKLHC01096218201819 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had exercised their statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition within the stipulated time. The Court reckoned that procedural fairness dictates that authorities should await the appellate authority's decision on the stay petition before proceeding with coercive steps. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals III) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope for an expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the appellate authority. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and the assessment year(s) were not recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Tharif Builders Private Limited, is a registered dealer under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle(2), Kozhikode, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals III), Ernakulam. The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with their appeal. Alleging that tax authorities were taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition, the petitioner filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authorities should defer coercive steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure and fairness). The petitioner argued that procedural fairness requires authorities to wait for the appellate authority's decision on the stay petition before initiating coercive measures. The revenue did not record any specific arguments 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 WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 41386 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S. THARIFF BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, THARIF ARCADE, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004 BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE(2), KOZHIKODE-673 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS III). ERNAKULAM-683001 3 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (CENTRAL) COCHIN-682 011 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 41386 of 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Income Tax Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed 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.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3.

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

-3- W.P.(C). No. 41386 of 2018 respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SEC.220 (6) FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.02.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.02.2018 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY LETTER DATED 11.12.2018

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →