KARUVIKATTUKUZHIL MATHEW JOHN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/36426/2017HC KeralaKLHC01084370201714 November 2017Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the assessee's stay petition (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the revenue recovery notice (Ext.P4) for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the appellate authority. The primary principle established is that recovery action should be deferred pending the appellate authority's decision on a stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karuvikattukuzhil Mathew John, is challenging an assessment order dated September 23, 2017, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. The petitioner alleges that despite the pending stay petition, recovery steps are being initiated by the respondents for the amounts confirmed in the assessment order. A revenue recovery notice dated November 9, 2017 (Ext.P4) was issued by the first respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the revenue should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the stay petition filed by the assessee before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that recovery steps are being pursued even before the stay petition is considered by the appellate authority, causing prejudice. The assessee relies on the general principle that recovery should not be pursued while a stay petition is pending. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the stay petition or the recovery steps.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/23RD KARTHIKA, 1939 WP(C).No. 36426 of 2017 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KARUVIKATTUKUZHIL MATHEW JOHN, KALATHARANGINI, KARUVIKATTUKUZHIL, NEDUMPURA P.O., CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR-679 531.

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001.

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

WP(C).No. 36426 of 2017 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/09/2017. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ................................................................... W.P.(C).No.36426 Of 2017 ..................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of November, 2017 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: 1. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2. Recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall

W.P.(C).No.36426 Of 2017

be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgement, together with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/14.11.17

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →