ABDUL JABBAR VAKKULATHIL vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/14994/2022HC KeralaKLHC01030143202229 April 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to pass orders, in accordance with law, on either the petitioner's appeals (Exts.P3 & P4) or his stay applications (Exts.P5 & P6), whichever it deems fit, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders (Exts.P1 & P2) shall be kept in abeyance until the aforementioned orders are passed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of ensuring timely consideration of the appeals and stay applications and preventing immediate recovery actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abdul Jabbar Vakkulathil, is aggrieved by assessment orders (Ext.P1 & P2) passed by the 1st respondent, the National Faceless Assessment Centre. He has filed appeals (Exts.P3 & P4) and stay applications (Exts.P5 & P6) before the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The petitioner contends that coercive proceedings are being initiated by the 1st respondent despite the pendency of his appeals and that he has a strong case. He seeks a direction for the consideration of his appeals and stay applications and for a stay on coercive proceedings until their disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's appeals (Exts.P3 & P4) and stay applications (Exts.P5 & P6) against the assessment orders (Exts.P1 & P2)? 2. Whether coercive proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeals and stay applications? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that he has a strong case against the assessment orders and that coercive proceedings are being initiated prematurely while his appeals and stay applications are pending. He seeks a directive for the expeditious disposal of these applications and a stay on any recovery actions. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 9TH VAISAKHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 14994 OF 2022 PETITIONER: ABDUL JABBAR VAKKULATHIL VAKKULATHIL HOUSE, UPPUNGAL, PUNNAYOORKULAM, P.O., THRISSUR – 679 561 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SR.STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 14994 OF 2022 2 MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,J - - - - - - - - - - - - WP(C)No. 14994 of 2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- Dated this the 29th day of April, 2022 JUDGMENT The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P1 & P2 orders of assessment has filed Exts.P3 and P4 appeals along with Exts.P5 and P6 stay applications before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is proposes to initiate coercive proceedings notwithstanding the pendency of Exts.P3 and P4 challenging Exts.P1 & P2 assessment orders. The petitioner submits he has a strong case to put forward to challenge Ext.P1 & P2 orders. He prays for a direction to consider Exts.P3 and P4 appeals and Exts.P5 and P6 stay applications and to stay all coercive proceedings till its disposal. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned counsel on either side, I direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders, in accordance with law either on Exts.P3 and P4 appeals or Exts.P5 and P6 stay applications whichever he deems fit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and till orders as directed above are passed, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 will be kept in abeyance.

WP(C) NO. 14994 OF 2022 3 Writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,JUDGE dlK 29.04.2022

WP(C) NO. 14994 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14994/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 Exhibit P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →