AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 21176 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE 49/1600A, EDAPALLY NORTH, ELAMAKKARA PO, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MR. M PREMANATH, PIN - 682041 BY ADVS. K.MANOJ CHANDRAN K.SRIKUMAR (SR.) P.R.AJITH KUMAR AMMU CHARLES RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) KOCHI (2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD,COCHIN, KERALA, PIN - 682018 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC),DELHI, PIN - 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 21176 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 30th day of June, 2023 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 appeal and Ext.P7 stay petition, expeditiously. 2. The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P5 assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the second respondent on 29.4.2023. During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent has issued Ext.P8 demand notice. Then, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 stay petition on 30.5.2023 before the second respondent. The petitioner’s apprehension is that during the pendency of Exts.P6 and P7, the first respondent may enforce Ext.P8 demand notice. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.K.Srikumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher

WP(C) NO. 21176 OF 2023 3 Abraham, 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. P7 stay petition is pending consideration before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the same within a time period fixed below. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:- (i) The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 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 the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) If the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the

WP(C) NO. 21176 OF 2023 4 same. (iii) The direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 stay petition will not stand in the way of the second respondent considering Ext.P6 appeal itself along with Ext.P7. (iv) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P7 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 shall stand deferred. SD/- rmm30/6/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 21176 OF 2023 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21176/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.03.2023 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29.04.2023 Exhibit P7 STAY PETITION DATED 30.05.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 01.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER