KUREECKAL JOSEPH PAUL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/25092/2019HC KeralaKLHC01064914201923 September 2019Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. Firstly, the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Secondly, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance until such time as orders were passed by the second respondent on the stay petition and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent. The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the stay petition and maintain status quo on recovery in the interim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kureekkal Joseph Paul, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being initiated by the respondents for the amounts confirmed in the assessment order, even before the stay petition was considered. The writ petition sought directions from the High Court regarding the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the revenue are premature, considering the pendency of the stay petition before the appellate authority? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the appellate authority under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken by the respondents prematurely, even before the appellate authority had an opportunity to consider the stay petition filed against the assessment order. The petitioner sought to halt these recovery proceedings until a decision was made on the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents. No specific arguments or contentions were recorded for the revenue 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 1ST ASWINA, 1941 WP(C).No.25092 OF 2019(J) PETITIONER: KUREECKAL JOSEPH PAUL KUREECKAL HOUSE, NEAR THRIKKAKARA TEMPLE, UNIVERSITY P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682022. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SHRI.VIPIN ANTO H.M. SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 (1), NON-CORP. RANGE -1, KOCHI - 682018. 2 COMMISSIONER INCOME OF TAX (APPEALS) AREECKAL MANSION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI & ANOTHER- 682036. BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.25092 OF 2019(J) 2 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: 1. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts

WP(C).No.25092 OF 2019(J) 3 confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.25092 OF 2019(J) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 29.04.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER PENDING BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 29.04.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →