REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE (RCC) vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

WP(C)/12727/2022HC KeralaKLHC01025732202207 April 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after considering the submissions from both the petitioner and the respondents, decided to dispose of the writ petition with a specific direction. The Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Ext.P7 and Ext.P8) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petitions. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment or penalty orders themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petitions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P2) and a penalty order (Ext.P4) for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner has filed appeals against these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent), as evidenced by Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. Concurrently, petitions for stay of proceedings arising from the assessment and penalty orders have been filed (Ext.P7 and Ext.P8). The petitioner has approached the High Court through a writ petition, apprehending coercive recovery actions before their stay petitions are adjudicated. The Income Tax Department (1st respondent) is the opposing party.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of their stay petitions filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that they have filed appeals and stay petitions against the assessment and penalty orders and are apprehending coercive proceedings before their stay applications are considered. They seek a direction from the High Court to ensure their stay petitions are heard and decided promptly. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. The revenue's counsel was heard, but their arguments on the merits of the stay petitions or the assessment/penalty orders are not detailed in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 12727 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE (RCC) MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695011 BY ADVS. ATHUL SHAJI AKHIL SURESH RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO. 401 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEALS) NFAC, IV, ROOM NO.109, LAXMI NAGAR, AAYKAR BHAWAN NEW DELHI, PIN – 110092 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 12727 OF 2022 -2- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ========================= W.P.(C).No.12727 of 2022 ========================= Dated this the

7 th day of

April

, 202

2 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of assessment and Ext.P4 penalty order relating to assessment year 2018-19, petitioner has preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent, copies of which are produced as Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. Petitions for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order and penalty order have also been filed as Ext.P7 and Ext.P8. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petitions for stay are considered. Hence this writ petition. 2. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction. 3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 stay petitions, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

WP(C) NO. 12727 OF 2022 -3- judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE uu 07.04.2022

WP(C) NO. 12727 OF 2022 -4- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12727/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 08.04.2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 09.02.2022. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 (3) DATED 08.04.2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 270 A DATED 10.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED U/S 143(3) IN FORM NO.35 DATED 09.03.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED U/S 270 IN FORM NO.35 DATED 09.03.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION AGAINST APPEAL FILED U/S 143 (3) DATED 08.03.2022. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION AGAINST APPEAL FILED U/S 270 DATED 09.03.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →