DR.A.C.VELAYUDHAN vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/31888/2017HC KeralaKLHC01079833201706 October 2017Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages

AI SummaryThe provided text is an excerpt of a High Court judgment on a writ petition and does not indicate the final outcome or result of the petition. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if the petition was Allowed, Dismissed, Partly Allowed, Remanded, or Withdrawn based solely on this text.

What did the High Court hold?

As the provided text is a High Court judgment on a writ petition and not an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) judgment, it does not contain findings on specific issues decided by an ITAT. The High Court's decision or reasoning in this writ petition is not available in the given excerpt. Therefore, there is no finding on any issue, no reasoning provided, and no ratio decidendi that could be cited from this text. No operative directions or specific relief granted by the High Court are mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. A.C. Velayudhan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment years involved are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The petition also names the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Tax Recovery Officer, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as respondents. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not detailed in the excerpt, other than the fact that an order from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax is under challenge. The amount in dispute is also not specified.

What were the issues?

The provided text is a High Court judgment on a writ petition and does not detail the specific issues that the Tribunal (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) had to decide. Therefore, the questions the Tribunal had to decide, and the arguments of the assessee and the revenue on those issues, are not recorded in this excerpt. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act that form the basis of the dispute are also not mentioned.

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 FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/14TH ASWINA, 1939 WP(C).No. 31888 of 2017 (I) ----------------------------------------- WRIT PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------------------- DR.A.C.VELAYUDHAN,

32/305/1/, PALLATH LANE WEST, SITARAM MILL ROAD,

PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680 002.

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR SRI.T.T.BIJU SRI.K.P.KESAVAN NAIR SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENT(S) : ----------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT), DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, ALPHA LIZA BUILDING, OPP.SRV SCHOOL ROAD, KOCHI-682 011.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR, THRISSUR.

TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (INCOME TAX), CENTRAL, KOCHI, 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, MG ROAD, KOCHI-682 011.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOCHI IV, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036.

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd.

WP(C).No. 31888 of 2017 (I) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.ABRPV1554C/2013-14 DATED 07-11-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.ABRPV1551C/2014- 15 DATED 29-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 03-12-2016 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 AGAINST EXT P1 ORDER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28-01-2017 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 AGAINST EXT P2 ORDER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.TRO/CEN/CHN/DR.VELAYUDHAN/ITCP1/17-18 DATED 08-09-2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.

EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.TRO/CEN/CHN/DR.VELAYUDHAN/ITCP1/17-18 DATED 08-09-2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 22-09-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TRO/CEN/KOCHI/DR.VELAYUDHAN/2017-18 DATED 26-09-2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 3-10-2017 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN EXT P3 APPEAL.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 03-10-2017 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN EXT P4 APPEAL.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. ............................................................. Dated this the 6th day of October, 2017 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 penalty order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal together with Ext.P8 stay petition before the 5th respondent. Similarly against Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P9 stay petition before the 5th 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 penalty order and Ext.P2 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 5th respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9 stay petitions 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 Exts.P5 and P5(a) revenue recovery notices for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P1 penalty order and Ext.P2 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the 5th respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgement, together with a copy of the writ petition before the 5th respondent for further action.

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/06.10.17

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →