M/S. REAL DISTRIBUTORS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/28683/2022HC KeralaKLHC01060610202202 September 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (NFAC) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay (Ext.P3) and the stay application (Ext.P4) within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that further proceedings for recovery of any amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on these applications. The Court clarified that the NFAC should only consider the stay application if it finds sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Real Distributors, filed an appeal against an assessment order (Ext.P1) before the first appellate authority, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal and a stay application. While these applications were pending, recovery proceedings were initiated to collect the amounts due under the assessment order. Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking intervention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent are premature, given that the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay and stay are pending before the appellate authority? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should not have been initiated while their applications for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and for a stay were pending before the NFAC. They sought a direction to keep further recovery proceedings in abeyance. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent appeared, but their specific contentions regarding the premature nature of recovery proceedings were not recorded in detail in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2022 PETITIONER: 1 M/S. REAL DISTRIBUTORS AGED 44 YEARS KANJULLY HOUSE KANIYARKODE P,O, THIRUVILLAMALA THRISSUR , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PRASAD KANJULLY. PIN - 680594 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD NO: 2(4), AAYAKARBHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI , REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, PIN - 110001 ADV. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC NO.28683 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 02nd day of September, 2022 The petitioner has filed an appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment before the first appellate authority namely, the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed an application for stay along with an application to condone the delay in filing the application. Pending consideration of the application for condonation of delay and consideration of the application for stay, recovery proceedings have been initiated to recover the amounts due under Ext.P1 order. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel also. 3. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for condonation of delay and Ext.P4 stay

WPC NO.28683 of 2022 3 application with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time orders are passed on the applications as above, further proceedings for recovery of any amounts due under Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent needs to consider the stay application only if he finds sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE SKP/02-09

WPC NO.28683 of 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28683/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 20-12-2019 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-12-2021 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26-12-2021 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-12-2021 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →