KOZHIKODE DAYA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS ),

WP(C)/26119/2021HC KeralaKLHC01065543202123 November 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the potential for coercive proceedings before the consideration of their stay petition. While not deciding the merits of the appeal or the stay petition, the Court found it appropriate to issue a direction to the appellate authority. The Tribunal held that the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should 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 directed that all coercive proceedings be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court focused on procedural directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kozhikode Daya Hospitals Private Limited, is aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner has filed a second appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, and a petition for stay of proceedings. The petitioner apprehends coercive action before the stay petition is considered. Consequently, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when alternative remedies, including a second appeal and a stay petition, are available to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they have filed a second appeal and a stay petition but apprehend coercive proceedings before the stay petition is considered. This apprehension necessitates the intervention of the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case. The revenue's counsel was present, but their arguments are not detailed 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 26119 OF 2021 PETITIONER: KOZHIKODE DAYA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED, V-302 AND 303, SHORNUR ROAD, NEAR VIYYUR BRIDGE, THRISSUR -680 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.P. AHAMMED KOYA. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS ), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 26119 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26119 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2021 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2015-16, petitioner has preferred a second 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 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of

WP(C) NO. 26119 OF 2021 3 receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

WP(C) NO. 26119 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26119/2021 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →