ALLEBASI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/25038/2021HC KeralaKLHC01063275202112 November 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while considering the writ petition, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III) or the competent authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Ext.P5 and Ext.P6) filed by the petitioner 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 initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petitions. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment orders or the appeals.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Allebasi Builders and Developers Private Limited, is aggrieved by assessment orders for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent). The petitioner has filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III (2nd respondent), along with stay petitions. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before their stay petitions are considered. Consequently, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of their stay petitions pending before the appellate authority, and a stay on coercive proceedings until such disposal? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that they have filed appeals and stay petitions against the assessment orders and apprehend coercive action before the stay petitions are adjudicated. They seek a direction for the timely consideration of their stay applications and a stay on recovery proceedings pending that consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The court considered submissions from both sides before passing the 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. 25038 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: ALLEBASI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.1 SHELTER, L.M.S.JUNCTION, ATTINGAL.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695101, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI ARUN RAJ PILLAI. BY ADVS. S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF DIVYA RAVINDRAN M.H.ASIF ALI RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-III, 28/243, "POORNIMA", .PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. BY 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. 25038 OF 2021 -2- JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessment relating to assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, petitioner has preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent, copies of which are produced as Ext.P3 and Ext.P4. Petitions for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders have also been filed as Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petitions 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 2nd respondent or the competent authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 stay petitions, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

WP(C) NO. 25038 OF 2021 -3- Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE uu 12.11.2021

WP(C) NO. 25038 OF 2021 -4- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25038/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 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 27.09.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2016-17 ALONG WITIH 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 FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →