M/S. CORBEL PRE LAMINATED BOARDS INDIA P. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/20359/2015HC KeralaKLHC01066197201507 July 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 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner. This consideration is to be done after issuing notice to the petitioner and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the notice under Section 221(1) (Ext.P5) shall be kept in abeyance until a final decision is taken by the 2nd respondent on the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Corbel Pre Laminated Boards India P. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order for the assessment year 2011-12 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Tirur (1st respondent). The petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode (2nd respondent). The writ petition also sought to challenge a demand notice under Section 156 and a notice under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both issued by the 1st respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when an appeal and stay petition are already pending before the appellate authority, and what is the appropriate course of action for the High Court in such circumstances? The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, implicitly sought intervention from the High Court to address the assessment order and related notices. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the assessment. The primary concern for the court was the procedural aspect of the pending appeal and stay petition before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156,Section 221(1)

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 TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2015/16TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 20359 of 2015 (T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. CORBEL PRE LAMINATED BOARDS INDIA P. LTD. VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM, REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR K.T.KUTTIHASSAN. BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES SMT.T.ARCHANA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, TIRUR - 676 101. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE - 673 004. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

WP(C).No. 20359 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011- 12 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX CIRCLE I, TIRUR. P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, TIRUR. P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE. P5 - THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 221 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, TIRUR.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.20359 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2015 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 assessment order for the year 2011-12 passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition against the said order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. 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 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a final decision is taken as directed above, all the coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE. AV

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →