PVM FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/2539/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007237202030 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances, ordered that the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) shall take up the stay application (Ext.P2(a)) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The appellate authority was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but directed the appellate authority to expedite the process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, PVM Fruits and Vegetables, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) against an order (Ext.P1). The grievance was that despite the pendency of the stay petition, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the assessing authority to enforce the impugned order and recover disputed amounts. The petitioner had also submitted a representation (Ext.P3) to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax seeking a stay on recovery proceedings. The matter was heard by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the disposal of the stay application and to stay coercive recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that revenue recovery proceedings were initiated during the pendency of their stay petition before the appellate authority, causing prejudice. They sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application and a stay on further coercive steps. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 10TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2539 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: PVM FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, MARKET P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 673 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI P.M ABDUSALAM BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALUVA RANGE, R.S ROAD, ALUVA 683101 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) 28/243, POORNIMA, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN 682 036 SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C) No.2539 of 2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2539 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P2(a) stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts. Petitioner has also filed Ext.P3 representation before the 1st respondent seeking to stay the recovery proceedings. 2. Heard Smt.Nisha John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P2(a) stay application filed in Ext.P2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised

W.P(C) No.2539 of 2020 3 representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on that application without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid Ext.P2(a) stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd

W.P(C) No.2539 of 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-12-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 15-01-2020 FOR AY- 2017-18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15-01-2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14-01-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 220(6) BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY- 2017-18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →