RAJAVALSAM MOTORS PVT.LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/25005/2021HC KeralaKLHC01063198202112 November 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while considering the submissions of both parties, was of the opinion that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III) or the competent authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1), shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The principle established is that a taxpayer who has filed an appeal and a stay petition should be afforded a reasonable timeframe for the adjudication of the stay, with a stay on coercive measures until then.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Rajavalsam Motors Pvt. Ltd., is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III (2nd respondent), as evidenced by Ext.P2, and a petition for stay of proceedings (Ext.P3). The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery actions before the stay petition is adjudicated. Consequently, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the timely consideration of their stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious consideration of their stay petition pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, to prevent coercive recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they have filed an appeal against the assessment order and a stay petition, but they apprehend coercive recovery actions before the stay petition is decided. Therefore, they sought a direction for the prompt disposal of the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 25005 OF 2021 PETITIONER: M/S RAJAVALSAM MOTORS PVT.LTD. RAJAVALSAM, PANAGADU, KULANDA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA- 689503 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI ARUN RAJ PILLAI. BY ADVS. S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF DIVYA RAVINDRAN M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENTS: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM – 691 001. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, 28/243, “POORNIMA’, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN – 682 036. ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 25005 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.25005 of 2021 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2021 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, relating to assessment year 2017-2018, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction. 3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd

WP(C) NO. 25005 OF 2021 3 respondent or the competent authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/12/11//2021

WP(C) NO. 25005 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25005/2021 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY- 2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 20.10.2021 FOR AY 2017-18, E-FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22.10.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →