SMT. POOJA RAJ PILLAI, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/13825/2022HC KeralaKLHC01027737202212 April 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal ordered that the 2nd respondent shall take up and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P3) within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court directed that all coercive steps to recover any amount pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay application. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on ensuring the expeditious disposal of the stay application and halting recovery actions in the interim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Pooja Raj Pillai, is an assessee. The assessment order and demand notice for assessment year 2016-2017 (Ext.P1) were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent). The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay application (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III (2nd respondent). The petitioner's grievance is that the 2nd respondent has not considered the appeal and stay application, and the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps for recovery of the demand raised in Ext.P1. This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala challenging the inaction of the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) has failed to consider the stay application filed by the petitioner, thereby causing prejudice and allowing coercive recovery proceedings to continue. The petitioner argued that the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps for recovery despite the pending appeal and stay application, and that the 2nd respondent has not taken up the stay application for consideration. The revenue (represented by the learned Government Pleader) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the delay in processing the stay application or the continuation of coercive steps.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 13825 OF 2022 PETITIONER: SMT.POOJA RAJ PILLAI, RAJAVALSAM, PANANGADU, P.O.PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-689501 BY ADVS. S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF DIVYA RAVINDRAN M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, 28/243, “POORNIMA”, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.13825 of 2022 2 VIJU ABRAHAM,J --------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13825 of 2022 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2022 JUDGMENT

Petitioner herein is an assessee before the 1st respondent. Ext.P1 is the assessment order along with the demand notice for the assessment year 2016-2017. The petitioner has challenged the order of assessment evidenced by Ext.P1, as per Ext.P2 appeal filed along with Ext.P3 stay application. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that Exts.P2 & P3 are not being considered by the 1st respondent and the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps to recover the amount due as per Ext.P1 assessment order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 3. The above writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up and dispose of Ext.P3 stay application within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a decision is taken as

WP(C) No.13825 of 2022 3 directed above, all coercive steps to recover any amount pursuant to Ext.P1 order of assessment, shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE pm

WP(C) No.13825 of 2022 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.3.2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2016-17 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 25.03.2022 FOR AY-2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 5.4.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2016-17 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →