VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/13855/2022HC KeralaKLHC01027788202212 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)-III. The court directed the 2nd respondent to 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 ordered 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 stay application itself, but rather on the procedural grievance of non-consideration. The principle established is that appellate authorities should consider stay applications expeditiously, and coercive recovery should be postponed pending such consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Vrindavan Builders Private Limited, is an assessee before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment order and demand notice for assessment year 2018-2019 were issued as per Ext.P1. 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. The petitioner's grievance is that the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) has not considered Exts.P2 and P3, and the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps to recover the demand raised in Ext.P1. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the appeal and stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) has failed to consider the appeal and stay application filed by the petitioner, thereby causing prejudice and necessitating intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent was not considering their appeal (Ext.P2) and stay application (Ext.P3), and that coercive steps were being taken to recover the demand raised in the assessment order (Ext.P1). They sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of their applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue side regarding the delay in disposal or the merits of the stay application. The learned Government Pleader appeared before the court.

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. 13855 OF 2022 PETITIONER: M/S.VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED OPPOSITE NST, WORKSHOP, CIRCULAR ROAD, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND-797112 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR – VARUN RAJ 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.13855 OF 2022 2 VIJU ABRAHAM,J --------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13855 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 2018-2019. 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 2nd 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.13855 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.13855 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-2018-19 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 25.03.2022 FOR AY-2018-19 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-2018-19 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →