RAJAVALSAM MOTOR PRIVATE LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/25034/2021HC KeralaKLHC01063271202112 November 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's apprehension of coercive proceedings and the pendency of their stay petitions. Instead of delving into the merits of the assessment orders or the stay petitions, the Court opted to dispose of the writ petition by issuing a direction. The Tribunal directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) or the competent authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Exts.P5 and P6) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P2), shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petitions. The principle established is that in cases of apprehended coercive action during the pendency of stay applications, the appellate authority should be directed to decide the stay petitions expeditiously, and coercive measures should be held in abeyance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajavalsam Motor Private Ltd, is aggrieved by assessment orders dated Exts.P1 and P2 for assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The petitioner filed appeals against these orders as Exts.P3 and P4 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. Simultaneously, petitions for stay of proceedings under the assessment orders were filed as Exts.P5 and P6. The petitioner apprehended coercive recovery proceedings before their stay petitions could be adjudicated, leading to the filing of this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should intervene to direct the expeditious disposal of stay petitions filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when coercive proceedings are apprehended. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are facing coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders and that their stay petitions have been filed. They apprehended that recovery actions might be initiated before their stay petitions are considered, necessitating judicial intervention. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court considered submissions from both sides before passing its order.

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. 25034 OF 2021 PETITIONER: RAJAVALSAM MOTOR PRIVATE LTD RAJAVALSAM, PANAGADU, KULANADA P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA-689 503.REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. SHRI ARUN RAJ PILLAI. BY ADVS. S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF DIVYA RAVINDRAN M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691 001.

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-111 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. 25034 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.25034 of 2021 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2021 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Exts.P1 & P2 assessment orders, relating to assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016- 2017, petitioner has preferred appeals before the 2 nd respondent, copies of which are produced as Exts.P3 and P4 respectively. Petitions for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders have also been filed as Exts.P5 and P6. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petitions for stay are 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.

WP(C) NO. 25034 OF 2021 3 3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent or the competent authority to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions, 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 Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders 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. 25034 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C)

25034/2021 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.9.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.9.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2016-17 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 20.10.2021 FOR AY-2015-16 E-FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 20.10.2021 FOR AY-2016-17, E-FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22.10.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22.10.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2016-17. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →