M/S. ZAIN SHOES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that it was appropriate to prevent coercive steps against the petitioner until their appeals before the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) were disposed of. This decision was based on the fact that the petitioner had already deposited 20% of the demand. Consequently, the court ordered that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner pending the disposal of their appeals. Furthermore, if the petitioner's bank account had already been frozen, it was ordered to be defreezed forthwith. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeals themselves but provided interim relief.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Zain Shoes, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging orders passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had already deposited 20% of the demand raised by the revenue. Despite this deposit, the revenue initiated recovery steps, including freezing the petitioner's bank account, as evidenced by Ext.P7 notice. The petitioner sought to prevent coercive steps until their appeals were disposed of by the appellate authority.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should intervene by directing the revenue to refrain from taking coercive steps against the petitioner pending disposal of their appeals, given that 20% of the demand has already been deposited. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that since they had already deposited 20% of the demand, no further coercive steps should be taken against them until their appeals are decided. They relied on the principle that a substantial portion of the demand has been satisfied, warranting a stay on recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. The court's order suggests the revenue was proceeding with recovery actions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent in appeals as against certain orders passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner would submit that they had already deposited 20% of the demand. In the meanwhile, steps have been taken to recover the amount pursuant to the impugned orders in appeals. Ext.P7 is the notice. It is submitted that the petitioner's Bank Account has been freezed. In the light of the fact that the petitioner had already deposited 20%, it is appropriate that no coercive steps shall be taken again the petitioner till the appeals are disposed of. If the Bank Account has already been freezed, it is ordered to be defreezed forthwith. This writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp
W.P.(C) No.1120/2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORDER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 DATED 20/07/2018 EXHIBIT P2OF THE ORDER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-16 DATED 20/07/2018 EXHIBIT P3OF THE ORDER FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2016-17 DATED 20/07/2018 EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPEAL DATED 21/8/2018 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P5OF THE APPEAL DATED 21/8/2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P6OF THE APPEAL DATED 21/8/2018 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P7OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/1/2018 SERVED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 UNDER EXT.P1 EXHIBIT P9 UNDER EXT P2 EXHIBIT P10 UNDER EXT.P3 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.P.S to Judge smp
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
