KINDER MEDICAL SERVICES vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6380/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037970201827 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from a High Court writ petition and does not contain the decision or findings of an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Therefore, what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning, the ratio, and any operative directions are not available. The judgment excerpt does not record any decision on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kinder Medical Services Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II. The petition also impleaded the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Center, and the Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward - 1(4), as respondents. The specific nature of the order under challenge and the assessment year(s) involved are not detailed in the provided text. The petition was admitted by the High Court on February 27, 2018. The Income Tax Department was represented by its counsel.

What were the issues?

The provided text does not contain sufficient information to identify the specific issues the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it record the arguments presented by the assessee or the revenue. Therefore, the questions of law or mixed law and fact, the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either side cannot be determined from this judgment excerpt.

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. 6380 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) KINDER MEDICAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, DOOR NO.XXX111/1233 KADAVIL CASTLE, PUKKATTUPADY ROAD TOLL, EDAPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM-682024; REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR ARJUNAN. BY ADVS.SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR SRI.K.AMAL NATH NAIK SMT.DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE SRI.ARJUN SANTHOSH SRI.RENOY VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, POST BAG NO.1, ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE, BANGALORE-560 500. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD - 1(4), C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS BUILDING, KOCHI-682018. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 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. 6380 of 2018 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(20 DTD.06.08.2013. EXT.P2; TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 28.01.2015 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3; TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.18.05.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL.` EXT.P5; TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD.17.01.2018 UNDER SECTION 245 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD.17.0.2018 UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. // true copy // Sd/- PS TO JUDGE Kvs/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6380 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.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P4 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P4 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.P2 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

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 WPC.No.6380 of 2018 2 case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P4 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- ////

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →