NETWORK SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/41013/2018HC KeralaKLHC01095056201819 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition without adverting to the merits of the case. The Court directed that the 1st respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) would consider the petitioner's application (Ext.P2) expeditiously, within one month. Furthermore, the authorities were directed to defer coercive steps until the application is considered. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an application under Section 220(6) is pending and coercive steps are threatened, the High Court can direct expeditious consideration of the application and a stay on coercive measures, without deciding the substantive appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Network Systems and Technologies Ltd (since amalgamated with SFO Technologies (P) Ltd), is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The assessment year in question is 2012-2013. Following assessment proceedings, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal and an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala through a Writ Petition (Civil) because they were facing coercive steps from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) before their application (Ext.P2) could be considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending proceedings before the income tax authorities, specifically concerning the consideration of an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, when coercive steps are being threatened. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought intervention to prevent coercive steps while their application under Section 220(6) was pending consideration. They argued that the authorities should not proceed with coercive measures until their application is decided. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel assured the Court that the 1st respondent would consider the petitioner's Ext.P2 application expeditiously.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

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. 41013 of 2018 PETITIONER: NETWORK SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH SFO TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD,A- 3,PERIYAR,PECHNOPARK COMPUS,P.O.KARYAVATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581 BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 1(1),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRIVUANANTHAPURAM SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 41013 of 2018 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assesssee under the Income Tax Act, had his income assessed for 2012-2013. After those assessment proceedings, there arose a statutory appeal and also an application under Section 220(6) of the Act. Faced with the coercive steps before the 1st respondent could consider its Ext.P2 application, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

2.

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the learned Standing Counsel assures the Court that the 1st respondent will consider the petitioner's Ext.P2 application expeditiously. Without adverting to the merits, I dispose of the Writ Petition holding that the 1st respondent will consider the petitioner's Ext.P2 application expeditiously, in one month. The authorities will defer coercive steps till then. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

WP(C).No. 41013 of 2018 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DATED 31.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 220(6) DATED 4.5.2016 EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AND PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //// P.A. TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →