ANNAMMA ABRAHAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,

WP(C)/17838/2015HC KeralaKLHC01063678201515 June 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner. This consideration must be done after issuing notice to the petitioner and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that all recovery proceedings shall be deferred until a final decision is taken on the stay petition. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the second respondent for compliance. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment or the stay petition itself, only on the procedural aspect of its consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Annamama Abraham, is challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kottayam (the first respondent). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam (the second respondent) and also filed a stay petition against the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order. This writ petition was filed seeking directions from the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure) The petitioner argued that they have filed an appeal and a stay petition and sought a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay petition. The revenue did not present any specific arguments in the judgment provided.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/25TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 17838 of 2015 (D) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S) : ------------------------- ANNAMMA ABRAHAM, KANNOTHARA BUILDINGS, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SMT.O.A.NURIYA RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM- 682 016. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, S.C, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd.

WP(C).No. 17838 of 2015 (D) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.17838 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2015 J U D G M E N T The petitioner as against the assessment for the year 2012-13 by the 1st respondent under the Income Tax Act appealed before the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P2. The petitioner also moved Ext.P3 application for stay against recovery pursuant to the assessment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the stay petition, after issuing notice to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a final decision is taken as directed above, all the recovery proceedings shall be deferred. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE. AV

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →