M/S. WHITE METAL ALUMINIUM TRADING COMPANY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6583/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038173201827 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the application for condonation of delay within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If the delay is condoned, the Commissioner is also to pass orders on the stay application within the same period. Furthermore, the Court ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred until orders are passed on the application for condonation of delay or the stay application. The principle derived is that appellate authorities should act with reasonable expedition, and recovery proceedings can be deferred pending a decision on preliminary applications if there is undue delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. White Metal Aluminium Trading Company, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by an assessment order dated 28.11.2017 (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur. The petitioner filed a first appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur, for the assessment year 2015-16. There was a delay of ten days in filing this appeal, for which an application for condonation of delay was filed. The petitioner also filed a stay application (Ext.P3) in the appeal. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the appellate authority in passing orders on the condonation of delay and stay applications, while recovery proceedings for the disputed amount have already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, considering the ongoing recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in passing orders on the condonation of delay and stay applications by the second respondent is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek directions for a timely decision. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

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 TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6583 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. WHITE METAL ALUMINIUM TRADING COMPANY AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLUR-680 666, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BEERU. BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI SRI.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (THRISSUR) RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), O/O THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 004. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPT. OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR-680 004. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6583 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. AABFW7107R/W-2(2)/TCR DATED 28-011-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF FIRST APPEAL IN FORM 35 DATED 01-01-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01-01-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BY WAY OF E-FILING DATED 15-01-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 6583 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 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 Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. There was a delay of ten days in filing the appeal. It is stated that the petitioner has preferred an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on the application for condonation of delay and Ext.P3 application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P. (c) No.6583/2018 -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 the application for condonation of delay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, orders shall be passed on the application for stay preferred by the petitioner also within the aforesaid time. Needless also to say that until orders are passed on the application for condonation of delay or the application for stay, as the case may be, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →