M.BRIJESH, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/4069/2019HC KeralaKLHC01010691201912 February 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had exercised his statutory remedy of filing appeals and stay petitions in a timely manner. The Court found that procedural fairness requires the authorities to wait before taking further steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petitions. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considers the stay petitions. The Court also expressed hope that the Commissioner would dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously. No specific assessment years or amounts in dispute were mentioned. The core principle is that coercive steps should be deferred pending the disposal of stay petitions by the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M. Brijesh, proprietor of M/s. Geetham Sweets, filed appeals against assessment orders (Exts. P1 and P1(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He also filed stay petitions along with his appeals. The petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition, alleging that the revenue authorities were initiating coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on his stay petitions. The writ petition was filed on February 12, 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities should defer coercive steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petitions filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure and fairness) The assessee contended that he had availed his statutory remedy by filing appeals and stay petitions on time. He argued that procedural fairness dictates that the authorities should await the decision on the stay petitions before resorting to coercive measures. 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 TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 4069 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: M.BRIJESH, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.RAMANKUTTY GUPTHAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. GEETHAM SWEETS, 30/167, BIG BAZAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,PALAKKAD-678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680001., OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.4069/2019 -2-

J U D G M E N T The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, questioned the Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders before the second respondent. The petitioner, in the appeals, filed stay petitions, too. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petitions in the appeals, 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 the appeals. It appears that he has also filed stay petitions. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petitions. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the second

W.P.(C) No.4069/2019 -3- respondent considers the stay petitions. I also hope that the second respondent will dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2014-15 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT -2013-14 EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT -2014-15

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →