DAVID RAJ.C. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/3919/2019HC KeralaKLHC01010253201911 February 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, to consider the stay application filed by the petitioner within a period of two months. This consideration is to be done after issuing notice to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings based on the assessment order (Exhibit P1) shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay application. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of these directions. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court provided a procedural remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, David Raj.C., aged 53, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had received an assessment order, marked as Exhibit P1. In response, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, as per Exhibit P2. Simultaneously, a stay application was filed by the petitioner, marked as Exhibit P3. The writ petition sought directions regarding the pending appeal and stay application. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, and the Tax Recovery Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV) should be directed to consider the stay application filed by the petitioner within a specified period? (Question of procedure and administrative direction) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application filed along with the appeal against the assessment order. The petitioner implicitly argued for a stay on recovery proceedings until the stay application is decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. It notes that the court considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 22ND MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 3919 of 2019 PETITIONER: DAVID RAJ.C. AGED 53 YEARS S/O. JACOB DAS, CHERUVATHOOR, NO.21, SKYLINE HERITAGE, THRISSUR-680001. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR- 680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682036. 3 THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX , AYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. MM JASMINE GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3919 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, as against Exhibit P1 assessment order, filed Exhibit P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also filed Exhibit P3 stay application.

Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the stay application filed by the petitioner within a period of two months, after issuing notice to the petitioner. Till disposal of the stay application, all recovery proceedings based on the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE SVP

WP(C).No. 3919 of 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-

16.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT -2015-16. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT- 2015-16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →