PUZHAKKAL BLOCK MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS MULTI PURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY R 1340, vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/17597/2022HC KeralaKLHC01035809202231 May 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the pendency of the appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority, found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a specific direction. The Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner concerning the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. This approach aims to protect the petitioner from immediate recovery actions while allowing the appellate process to unfold.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Puzhakkal Block Motor Vehicle Owners Multi Purpose Cooperative Society R 1340, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2016-17, marked as Ext.P1. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this order before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, as evidenced by Ext.P2. Concurrently, a petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order was filed, marked as Ext.P3. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery actions before their stay petition is adjudicated. Consequently, the petitioner has approached the High Court of Kerala by way of this writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that they are apprehending coercive proceedings from the revenue even before their stay petition is considered by the appellate authority. This imminent threat of coercive action necessitates intervention by the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents. However, the court's disposal of the writ petition with a direction suggests that the respondents' primary stance, if any, was likely to await the appellate authority's decision on the stay petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 17597 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: PUZHAKKAL BLOCK MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS MULTI PURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY R 1340, KOLAZHY PO, THRISSUR, KERALA- 680010 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MS. JULIAT JOHN THARAYIL. BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU P.K.BIJU EDATHARA VINEETA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NEW DELHI - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 110001 SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 17597 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2016-17, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence, this writ petition.

Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed with a direction.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner in respect of Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 17597 OF 2022 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17597/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.03.2022 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →