HLL BIOTECH LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/181/2019HC KeralaKLHC01000437201904 January 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala acknowledged that the petitioner had exercised their statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition on time. The Court found that procedural fairness necessitates that the revenue authorities wait for the appellate authority to decide on the stay petition before taking further coercive steps. Therefore, the Court directed the respondent authorities to defer coercive steps until the 4th respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the Tribunal would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment or the appeal itself, as the writ petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, HLL Biotech Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed by the 1st respondent (Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)) before the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)), who rejected the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the 4th respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench) and also filed a stay petition. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, alleging that the revenue authorities were taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, by filing an appeal and a stay petition before the appropriate appellate authorities. 2. Whether the revenue authorities should defer coercive steps pending the decision of the appellate authority on the stay petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had exercised their statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition. They contended that coercive steps were being taken prematurely, before the stay petition could be adjudicated. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 181 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: HLL BIOTECH LTD. HILL BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. BY ADVS. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.J.SURYA SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKKAR BHAWAN, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003. 3 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

-2- W.P.(C). No. 181 of 2019 4 INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH 1ST FLOOR WING C1 AND C2, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, OPP.TO SCEZ, KAKKANAD, KJOCHI-682037, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent, who rejected it. Later, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent with second appeal. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

-3- W.P.(C). No. 181 of 2019 learned Government Pleader. 3. I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 4th respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 4th respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/12/2016.

-4- W.P.(C). No. 181 of 2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IN FORM-7 UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/1/2018 IN WP(C) NO. 2396/2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/1/2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/6/2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/9/2018 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/11/2018 IN W.P(C) NO.33679/2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2018 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/12/2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →