K.D. VIJAY HARI, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/16836/2023HC KeralaKLHC01036595202329 May 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously, and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court further stipulated that if a conditional order of stay was proposed, the second respondent must provide reasons for it. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and demand notice (Ext.P2) were to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K.D. Vijay Hari, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, to expeditiously consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P4). The petitioner is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a demand notice (Ext.P2) issued by the Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre. The stay petition was filed on May 15, 2023, but remained unattended. The petitioner apprehended enforcement of the demand notice, prompting the writ petition. The respondents were represented by their counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the second respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending appeal and stay petition expeditiously, given the threat of enforcement of the demand notice. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his appeal and stay petition were pending before the second respondent and that the respondents were threatening to enforce the demand notice, necessitating urgent intervention by the Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel appeared before the Court, but no specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding their stance on the expeditious disposal of the appeal or stay petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16836 OF 2023 PETITIONER: K.D. VIJAY HARI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O, KOZHIPARAMBIL DAMODARAN, PROPRIETOR, LORD KRISHNA HOUSE, SOUTH AMMAN KOVIL, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-680001, RESIDING AT KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR EVANUR TEMPLE, PERINGAVU, CHEROR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680008 BY ADVS. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR ANTONY JONES RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 OTHER PRESENT: BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (S.C.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 16836 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 29th day of May, 2023 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition, expeditiously. 2. The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2 demand notice, he has preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition before the second respondent. Although Ext.P4 stay petition was filed on 15.5.2023, the same is left unattended. The respondents are threatening to the enforcement of Ext.P2 demand notice. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri. N.Muraleedharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, the counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Having considered the fact that Exts.P3 appeal and P4 stay petition are pending, and the respondents are proposing to proceed with Ext.P2 demand notice, I

WP(C) NO. 16836 OF 2023 3 deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:- (i) The second respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P4 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) If the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P4 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- rmm29/5/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 16836 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16836/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 28.04.2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.05.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →