MUHAMMEDALI KEKKALACHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/24626/2023HC KeralaKLHC01053925202327 July 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent (NFAC) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext P5) expeditiously, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court also stipulated that if the NFAC proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, it must provide reasons for the same. Furthermore, until an order was passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1), demand notice (Ext P2), and letter (Ext P4) were ordered to be deferred. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, focusing on the procedural aspect of disposing of the stay petition and deferring enforcement.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muhammedali Kekkalaachi, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the third respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), to consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext P3) and stay petition (Ext P5) expeditiously. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext P1) and a demand notice (Ext P2) issued by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. He filed an appeal and a stay petition on July 24, 2023. The petitioner expressed apprehension that the respondents might enforce the assessment order, demand notice, and a subsequent letter (Ext P4) before his stay petition was decided. The High Court heard both the petitioner and the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the third respondent (NFAC) should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending stay petition (Ext P5) expeditiously, and if so, within what timeframe? 2. Whether further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1), demand notice (Ext P2), and letter (Ext P4) should be deferred until a decision is rendered on the stay petition? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his appeal and stay petition were pending before the NFAC and that he apprehended enforcement action before a decision on the stay petition. He sought expeditious disposal of his stay petition and a deferral of enforcement proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 24626 OF 2023 PETITIONER: MUHAMMEDALI KEKKALACHI AGED 56 YEARS KEKKALACHI HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA POST, WAYANNAD - 673124 KERALA., PIN – 673124 BY ADVS. M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED AKHIL PHILIP MANITHOTTIYIL RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, J3PR+225, KAINATTY, KALPETTA, WAYANNAD DISTRICT KERALA 673121, PIN – 673121 2 THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA, NEW DELHI, 110001, PIN – 110001 3 THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, C-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, S.P. M. CIVIC CENTER, NEW DELHI-110001, PIN - 110001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.24626/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 27th day of July,2023 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to direct the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext P3 appeal and Ext P5 stay petition, expeditiously. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order and Ext P2 demand notice, the petitioner has preferred Ext P3 appeal before the third respondent. Along with appeal, the petitioner has also filed Ext P5 stay petition on 24.07.2023. Now, the first respondent has issued Ext P4 letter. The petitioner is apprehensive that the respondents may enforce Exts P1, P2 & P4. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri. M.P.Shameem Ahamed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing

W.P.(C)No.24626/2023 -:3:- Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext P5 stay petition is pending consideration before the third respondent since 24.07.2023, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) The third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext P5 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 this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention that, if the third respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext P5

W.P.(C)No.24626/2023 -:4:- stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts P1, P2 & P4 shall stand deferred. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/27.07.23 //True copy// P.A.To Judge

W.P.(C)No.24626/2023 -:5:- APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.03.2022 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.03.2022 ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM 35 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24.07.2023 ALONG WITH THE E-ACKNOWLEDGMENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →