M/S. EMKE COLLECTIONS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/18074/2023HC KeralaKLHC01039305202306 June 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed respondents 2/3 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously, within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court also stipulated that if a conditional stay order is proposed, reasons must be provided. Crucially, until an order is passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) were deferred. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Emke Collections, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and National Faceless Appeal Centre) to expeditiously consider and dispose of their appeal (Ext P2) and stay petition (Ext P3). The petitioner is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext P1) and fears enforcement of this order while their stay petition is pending. The petitioner is represented by its partner, Shanavas. The respondents are represented by their respective counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents 2/3 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and National Faceless Appeal Centre) should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously and, until such time, whether further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) should be stayed? The petitioner argued that their appeal and stay petition are pending and they apprehend enforcement of the assessment order. They sought a direction for expeditious disposal and a stay on further proceedings. The revenue's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.

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 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S. EMKE COLLECTIONS KANDAM LANE, POST OFFICE ROAD, NEAR MUNICIPAL STAND, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SHANAVAS, PIN – 680001 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001 3 NATIONAL FACELESE APPEAL CENTRE DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PIN – 110001 SHRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.18074/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 6th day of June,2023 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 2/3 to consider and dispose of Ext P2 appeal and Ext P3 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time, to stay further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 assessment order. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext P2 appeal before the second respondent. Later, the petitioner has preferred Ext P3 stay petition, which is pending consideration before the second respondent. However, the petitioner is apprehensive that the respondents will enforce Ext P1 assessment order. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose

W.P.(C)No.18074/2023 -:3:- Joseph, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext P3 stay petition is pending consideration before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: (i) The respondents 2/3 are directed to consider and dispose of Ext P3 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention that, if the respondents 2/3 propose to pass a conditional order of stay, they shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext P3 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant

W.P.(C)No.18074/2023 -:4:- to Ext P1 assessment order shall stand deferred. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/06.06.23 //True copy// P.A.To Judge

W.P.(C)No.18074/2023 -:5:- APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 11417/23 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 11-04-2023 EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 23-12- 2019 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16-01-2020 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. NIL RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →