M/S.BHARATH TRANSPORTCOMPANY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/2755/2013HC KeralaKLHC01045953201305 February 2013Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pass orders on the appeal expeditiously, and at any rate, within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered a stay on the recovery of the tax due under the assessment order, subject to the petitioner remitting one-third of the tax due within three weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural delay and the interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Bharath Transport Company, is challenging an order of assessment dated December 8, 2010, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Kottayam, for the assessment year 2008-09. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Kochi. The appeal was heard on November 16, 2011, but no order was passed. Due to a change in the incumbent officer, the appeal was reposted for hearing on February 7, 2013. In the interim, the petitioner received a notice (Ext.P7) demanding payment of the tax due. This writ petition was filed under these circumstances.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing an order on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order amounts to a failure of the appellate authority to discharge its statutory duty, warranting intervention by the High Court. (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural efficacy of the appellate process). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite filing an appeal and stay petition, and the appeal being heard, no orders were passed. This delay, coupled with a demand for tax payment, necessitated the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner relied on the fact that the appeal was pending and the tax demand was issued while the appeal was yet to be decided. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not explicitly record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for expeditious disposal and stay. However, their presence and representation indicate an opposition to the relief sought by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/16TH MAGHA 1934 WP(C).No. 2755 of 2013 (T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.BHARATH TRANSPORT COMPANY CHEMMANAM INVESTORS BUILDING,PERUVA,VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. THAMPI T.K. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I,PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,SASTHRI ROAD KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERA BHAVAN,KOCHI-682035. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.C. NO.2755/2013

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 08.12.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ALONG WITH THE INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P2:- COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL, STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 25.01.2011 FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)IV, KOCHI. EXHIBIT P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX DATED 05.02.2011 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)IV, KOCHI. EXHIBIT P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.07.2011 ISSUED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV, KOCHI. EXHIBIT P5:- COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 08.11.2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV, KOCHI. EXHIBIT P6:- COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)IV, KOCHI. EXHIBIT P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).2755/2013 .............................................. Dated this the 5th day of February, 2013 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order of assessment passed against the petitioner concerning the assessment year 2008-09. Challenging the assessment order, petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition. Although the appeal was heard on 16.11.2011, orders were not passed. Subsequently there was a change in the incumbent resulting in reposting of the appeal to 7.2.2013. In the meanwhile, petitioner was issued Ext.P7 notice requiring payment of the tax due. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Admittedly, Ext.P2 appeal filed against Ext.P1 is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the

W.P.(C).2755/13 2 meanwhile, recovery of the tax due under Ext.P1 will stand stayed subject to the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax due thereunder, within three weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →