M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)

WP(C)/19759/2016HC KeralaKLHC01067183201609 June 2016Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated June 9, 2016, dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The reasoning provided is that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the High Court against the ITAT's order. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits. No specific issue regarding the assessment itself was decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s.Kaduna Hospitality Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Jacob Cherian, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(2), Kochi, the second respondent. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed, other than it is being heard for admission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)? (Question of law, turning on the scope of writ jurisdiction). The petitioner contends that the writ petition is maintainable as there are grounds to challenge the orders, implying a potential violation of principles of natural justice or jurisdictional error. The revenue (represented by the Government Pleader) would likely argue that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal to the High Court against the ITAT's order, making a writ petition inappropriate. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments on maintainability or the specific grounds for challenge by the petitioner.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WP(C).No. 19759 of 2016 (T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, 39/4602, CHERAMEL BUILDING, SREEKANDATH ROAD, KOCHI-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.JACOB CHERIAN. BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.RONY JOSE SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KERA BHAVAN, SRVHS ROAD, NEAR SRV HIGH SCHOOL, KOCHI-682 011. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

WP(C).No. 19759 of 2016 (T) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.31.3.2016. P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD.27.4.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX DTD.27.4.2016. P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.11.5.2016. P5: COPY OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1914 DTD.2/2/93 P6: COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DTD.29.2.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.19759 of 2016 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June 2016

J U D G M E N T Petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal as well as Ext.P3 application for stay before the 1st respondent. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, steps are being taken by the respondent authorities for recovering the amount demanded made in terms of Ext.P4 demand notice. 2. Having regard to the fact that an appeal is pending before the competent authority, I do not think it necessary to consider the matter on merits. Suffice to say that the appellate authority has to consider the stay petition on merits within a specified time and in the meantime, recovery can be kept in abeyance. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under: i) The 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P3 stay petition filed along with the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

W.P.C.No.19759/2016 2 ii) In the meantime, the demand made in terms of Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance.

(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →