HILLWOOD TIMERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/4440/2018HC KeralaKLHC01036030201819 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated February 19, 2018, dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The reasoning provided is that the petitioner has an alternative and equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. The specific amount in dispute or the assessment year(s) were not the basis of the decision, nor were they explicitly discussed in the context of the dismissal. No issues were left undecided; the primary issue of maintainability was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hillwood Timbers, represented by its Managing Partner V. Shareef, filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the revenue authorities. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not detailed in the excerpt. The dispute involves tax matters concerning the petitioner's business.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, considering the availability of alternative remedies, specifically an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner has not presented its arguments in the provided text. The excerpt does not contain any submissions made by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Sri. Jose Joseph and Sri. Christopher Abraham, likely argued that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the existence of an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). They would have contended that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal process rather than approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 30TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4440 of 2018 -------------------- PETITIONER(S) HILLWOOD TIMBERS DOOR NO.XI/67C; PUNARPA; MAKKARAPPARAMBA; MALAPPURAM; REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER V.SHAREEF. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATHAN. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2; KOZHIKODE; 673 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III KOCHI - 682 036. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE; ERNAKULAM -682 018.

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2018 ALONG WITH W.P.C.NO.4448/2018 AND W.P.C.NO.4449/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DXY

WP(C).No. 4440 of 2018 (D)

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : ANNEXURE TO ASSMT. ORDER FOR 2012.13. EXHIBIT P2 : ANNEXURE TO ASSMT. ORDER FOR 2013.14. EXHIBIT P3 : IT COMPUTATION & DEM.NOTE: 2012.13. EXHIBIT P4 : IT COMPUTATION & DEM.NOTE: 2013-14. EXHIBIT P5 : APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2012.13. EXHIBIT P6 : APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P7 : NOTICE DATED 16.01.2018 TO DEBTORS. RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS: NIL \\TRUE COPY\\ PA TO JUDGE DXY

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.4440, 4448 & 4449 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T

Petitioners in these writ petitions are assessees under the Income Tax Act (the Act). They have been assessed for the various years mentioned in the writ petitions under Section 153A of the Act. The petitioners challenged the assessment orders in appeal and the appeals preferred by the petitioners in this regard are pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have applied for stay before the assessing authority invoking sub- section (6) of Section 220 of the Act and the assessing authority, in terms of various orders produced in these matters, granted the stay sought for by the petitioners, on

W.P.(c).Nos.4440, 4448 and 4449 of 2018 : 2 : condition that they should remit 20% of the demand. The case of the petitioners is that 20% of the amount directed to be paid in terms of the orders issued under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act comes to several crores. It is the further case of the petitioners that the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the assessment orders mentioned in the writ petitions have been partly heard by the Appellate Authority on 12/02/2018, 13/02/2018 and 15/02/2018 respectively. The petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeals itself on merits. They also seek directions to the respondents to refrain from initiating proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the assessment orders, till the disposal of the appeals. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the appeals were partly heard, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to

W.P.(c).Nos.4440, 4448 and 4449 of 2018 : 3 : move applications for stay before the Appellate Authority in all the pending appeals. It is also directed that if the petitioners prefer applications for stay as permitted above within a week, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and pass orders within a week thereafter. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment for compliance before the Appellate Authority. Needless to say that if the petitioners prefer applications for stay as directed above, till orders are passed on the applications, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the orders impugned in the appeals referred to in the writ petitions, shall be deferred. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →