THARIFF BUILDERS PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/41374/2018HC KeralaKLHC01096256201819 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had exercised their statutory remedy by filing an appeal within the prescribed time and had also filed a stay petition. The Court found that procedural fairness necessitates that authorities should await the appellate authority's decision on the stay petition before taking further coercive steps. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities 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 itself, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of coercive steps.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, ThARIFF BUILDERS PVT. LTD., is a registered dealer under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Ernakulam. The petitioner also filed a stay petition in the appeal. The grievance raised in this writ petition is that the revenue authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to prevent these coercive actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities can initiate coercive steps against the assessee while a stay petition is pending before the appellate authority, thereby potentially prejudicing the assessee's statutory remedy? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps are being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority has had an opportunity to consider the stay petition filed by the assessee. This action, according to the petitioner, undermines the statutory appeal process and procedural fairness. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the context implies the revenue's actions were proceeding despite the pending stay petition.

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. 41374 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: THARIFF BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 2ND FLOOR,THARIF ARCADE,PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE(2),KOZHIKODE-673001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS III), ERNAKULAM-682018. 3 TAX RECOVERY OFFCER(CENTRAL), COCHIN-682011. 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. 41374 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. 41374 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 THE 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 →