V.P.ABDUL KAREEM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/34325/2018HC KeralaKLHC01079003201822 January 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without adverting to the merits of the appeals, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the petitioner's appeals (Exts.P8, P11, and P12) expeditiously within two months. The Court further ordered that until these appeals are considered, the income tax authorities will defer any coercive steps against the petitioner. The principle established is that the High Court can, in appropriate writ proceedings, direct statutory authorities to dispose of pending matters within a reasonable time, especially when parties agree to such a course of action and coercive steps can be stayed pending disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, V.P. Abdul Kareem, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of his pending appeals. The petitioner had filed appeals marked as Exts.P8, P11, and P12 before the first respondent. He had also complied with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit, as evidenced by Exts.P13 to P15. The petitioner's counsel and the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue agreed that the writ petition could be disposed of by fixing a time frame for the first respondent to consider the appeals on their merits. The authorities were also to defer coercive steps until the appeals were decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the petitioner's pending appeals within a specified time frame? (Question of procedure/administration of justice). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a time-bound disposal of his appeals pending before the first respondent, having complied with pre-deposit requirements. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the revenue agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the writ petition could be disposed of by fixing a time frame for the first respondent to consider the appeals on merits.

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 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 34325 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: V.P.ABDUL KAREEM AGED 57 YEARS S/O. V.P.ABU, PLOT NO. 4, OPP-TAMARIND NEST APARTMENTS, NEAR SWIMMING POOL, CHEROOTY NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, CALICUT - 04. BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAARBHAVAN, MANACHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (1) (1) T.P.S, KOZHIKODE 673 001 3 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAARBHAVAN, MANACHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001 4 MEHROOF MANALODY, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. GLOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES, PVT. LTD, HOUSE OF G TEC, INDUS AVENUE, CALICUT 673 002. 5 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1. KOZHIKODE 673 001 W.P.(C) No. 34325/2018 -2- 6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE 673 001 OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. K.V. M. PANDALAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has the Exts.P8, P11 and P12 appeals pending before the first respondent. As seen from the Exts.P13 to P15, the petitioner has complied with the statutory requirement of pre- deposit.

The petitioner's counsel and the learned Standing Counsel agree that this Court may dispose of the writ petition fixing a time frame for the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeals on merits.

Under these circumstances, without adverting to the merits, I dispose of the writ petition holding that the first respondent will consider the petitioner's Exts.P8, P11 and P12 -3- appeals expeditiously, in two months. Until those appeals are considered, the authorities will defer coercive steps. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE CERTIFICATION OF GLOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD DATED 03-08-2001 EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-03- 2015 OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-2009 EXHIBIT P3OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-3- 2015 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010 EXHIBIT P4OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-03- 2015 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-2012 EXHIBIT P5OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 5-12-2014 BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 THEOF THE ORDER DATED 29-12-2014 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER -4- EXHIBIT P7OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (HQ AND TPS), KOZHIKODE IN O.S NO. 56/2016 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P-4 ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 1 EXHIBIT P9 ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO. 1DATED 5-09-2017 REJECTING THE GRANT OF STAY OF RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 04-06- 2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →