THE MUSLIM PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY (P) LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/17269/2023HC KeralaKLHC01037583202330 May 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P5) expeditiously, in accordance with the law, and within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The court further stipulated that if the second respondent intended to pass a conditional order of stay, the reasons for such condition must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and another order (Ext.P4) were to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Muslim Printing and Publishing Company (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV, to expeditiously consider and dispose of its appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P5). The petitioner's grievance stems from an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the first respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The appeal against this order was filed on January 15, 2020. The petitioner apprehended enforcement of the assessment order before their stay petition, filed on May 27, 2023, could be considered. The State Bank of India is also listed as a respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the pending stay petition filed by the assessee, turning on principles of administrative expediency and the right to a timely hearing. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the first respondent was threatening to enforce the assessment order (Ext.P1) and that their stay petition (Ext.P5) was pending before the second respondent. They apprehended that enforcement action might be taken before their stay petition was heard, necessitating judicial intervention for expeditious disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that Sri. Jose Joseph appeared for the respondents, but their specific contentions regarding the delay or the merits of the stay petition are not detailed in the provided text. The court proceeded to hear the matter based on the facts presented.

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 TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 17269 OF 2023 PETITIONER: THE MUSLIM PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY (P) LTD., CHANDRIKA BUILDING YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ABDUL SAMEER P.M, PIN - 673001 BY ADV PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW ANNEX BUILDING, MANANCHIRA KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - IV, POORNIMA BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR KOCHI, PIN - 682036 3 STATE BANK OF INDIA, 18BY 521 ORIENT COMMERCIAL COMPLEX DOWNHILL MALLAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 676519 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 17269 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 30th day of May, 2023 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition, expeditiously. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, the first respondent has passed Ext.P1 assessment order in the year 2017- 2018. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent as early as on 15.01.2020. The first respondent is threatening to enforce Ext.P1 order. The petitioner has filed Ext.P5 stay petition on 27.5.2023. The petitioner apprehends that before the consideration of Ext.P5, the respondents may enforce Ext.P1 order. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard;Sri. Premjit Nagendranernakulam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, the counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Having considered the fact that Exts.P5 stay

WP(C) NO. 17269 OF 2023 3 petition is pending consideration before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:- (i) The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 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 the reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P5 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance. SD/- rmm30/5/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 17269 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17269/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023542530 (1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DATED 31.12.2019 Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 15.01.2020 Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT NO. ITBA/REC/S/154_1/2021- 22/1038491324(1) DATED 06.01.2022 Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1053156226(1) DATED 25.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.05.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →