O.P. ACHUTHANKUTTY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6631/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038221201801 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The provided judgment excerpt is an order admitting the writ petition for hearing. It does not contain any findings or decisions by the High Court on the merits of the case. The court has merely decided to hear the matter. Therefore, there is no specific holding, reasoning, or ratio decidendi to extract from this text. The operative directions are limited to admitting the petition for further proceedings. No issues were decided on merits, and no relief was granted at this stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, O.P. Achuthankutty, a 63-year-old individual, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order or action by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thrissur. The other respondents include the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Cochin, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, and the Union of India. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The primary question before the High Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief under its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's specific contentions and the arguments presented by the revenue are not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt. Therefore, the specific legal provisions or precedents relied upon by either party cannot be identified from this text. The judgment does not frame specific questions of law or mixed law and fact that the Tribunal had to decide.

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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6631 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) O.P. ACHUTHANKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS,S/O.GOVINDA MENON,VIII-603,"SHANTHI",NEAR MAMMIYOOR TEMPLE,GURUVAYUR,THRISSUR-680101. BY ADVS.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,AYAKAR BHAVAN,S.T.NAGAR,THRISSUR-688001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN,COCHIN. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), COCHIN. 4. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON,C-II/49,SATYA MARG, CHANAKYAPURI,NEW DELHI-110021. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE/FINANCE, 128 A,NORTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI-110001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6631 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT. P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 13/01/2018 ALONG WITH CHALLAN AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2013-14. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 13/01/2018 ALONG WITH CHALLAN AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2014-15 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 13/01/2018 ALONG WITH CHALLAN AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2015-16 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 28.01.2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2013-14 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 28.01.2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF2014-15 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 28.01.2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF2915-16. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AFWPA 1021N/DCIT/(CC)/TCR/2017-18 DATED 01.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED -09.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AFWPA 1021N/DCIT(CC)/TCR/2017-18 DATED 19.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 28.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // Sd/- PS TO JUDGE. Kvs/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6631 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018

J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P13 is the composite application for stay filed by the petitioner in Exts.P4 to P6 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Exts.P4 to Ext.P6 appeals. It is stated that though the petitioner moved for stay before the the competent authority under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act, the petitioner was called upon to pay 20% of the demand while granting the stay sought for by him in terms of Ext.P10 communication and the said decision has been affirmed by the third respondent in terms of Ext.P12 communication. It is alleged by the petitioner that since the said directions have not been complied with by the petitioner, proceedings have been WPC.No.6631 of 2018 2 initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 to P3 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P13 composite application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by Exts.P10 and P12 communications. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P13 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- ////

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →