JEWEL HOMES (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/18689/2014HC KeralaKLHC01064310201421 July 20144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was not convinced that the discretionary power exercised by the appellate authority in directing payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the stay application was liable to be interfered with. The Court noted that the amount directed to be paid was less than 15% of the total demand. To facilitate compliance with the condition imposed in the stay order, the petitioner was granted two installments for payment: one on August 29, 2014, and the other on September 29, 2014. Until these installments were paid, coercive steps initiated by the Revenue were to be kept in abeyance. The Court also stipulated that on default of any installment, the Revenue would be entitled to proceed with recovery proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jewel Homes (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II (CIT(A)) concerning its appeal for assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court for a stay while its stay application was pending before the appellate authority. The High Court had directed the appellate authority to consider the stay application. The CIT(A), in its prima facie consideration of the stay application, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,00,000/-. The petitioner is represented by its Managing Director, Mr. P.A. Jihas, and the respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the discretionary power exercised by the appellate authority in directing payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the stay application is liable to be interfered with by this Court under its writ jurisdiction, considering it is less than 15% of the total demand? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a stay from the High Court while its stay application was pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner is challenging the order passed in the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The revenue is represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II. The judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the stay order, but implicitly supports the appellate authority's decision by not interfering with it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 156,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2014/30TH ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 18689 of 2014 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- JEWEL HOMES (P) LTD. CASAGRANTE BUILDING, DESABHIMANI JUNCTION, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682017. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. P.A. JIHAS

BY ADVS.SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.VINOD.V (EDAPPUNATHIL) RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II KERA BHAVAN, SRVHS ROAD, KOCHI - 682011. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1(2), C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018.

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP

WP(C).No. 18689 of 2014 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DT 28/3/2014. P1(A): COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF IT ACT, 1961, DT 28-3-2014. P1(B): COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R/W SECTION 271(1) © OF IT ACT 1961 DT 28/3/2014 P2: COPY OF APPEAL DT 30/4/2014 P3: COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DT 30/4/2014 P4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH STAY PETITION DT 16/5/2014 P5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH PETITION FOR WAIVER OF PRE-DEPOSIT DT 16/5/2014 P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE ITA NO. 34/R-1/E/CIT (A) 11/14-15 DT 04/7/2014. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 DT 11/7/2014. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DCIT/CIR.1(2)/EKM/2014-15 DT 18/7/2014 ISSUED BY THE R2 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE BP

K.Vinod Chandran, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18689 of 2014-I -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2014 JUDGMENT The challenge made in the present writ petition is, against the order passed in the stay application in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. The appeal was filed for the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner had also come before this Court to obtain a stay when the application for stay was pending. That was granted, with consequential direction to the appellate authority to consider the stay application. The first appellate authority, on a prima facie consideration, has directed payment of Rs.50,00,000/- [Rupees fifty lakhs only]. 2. This Court finds that the amount directed to be paid is only below 15% of the total demand made. In such circumstance, this Court is not convinced that the discretionary power exercised by the appellate authority is liable to be interfered with. However, to enable the petitioner to satisfy the condition imposed in the order passed in the stay application,

WP(C).No.18689 of 2014 - 2 - the petitioner shall be granted two instalments, one on 29.08.2014 and the other on 29.09.2014. Till such time, the coercive steps initiated shall be kept in abeyance. On default of any of the above instalments, the Revenue will be entitled to proceed with the recovery proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-

K.Vinod Chandran, Judge vku. ( true copy )

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →