M/S.D.J.AMUSEMENTS, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

WP(C)/29147/2020HC KeralaKLHC01073472202029 December 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by issuing a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay applications (Ext. P3) submitted by the petitioner in their pending appeals (Ext. P2). The Court directed that a decision on these stay applications should be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until such time as a decision is taken on the stay applications, any coercive action against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original orders or the appeals.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. D.J. Amusements, represented by its Managing Partner, filed three writ petitions challenging Ext. P1 orders issued by the Income Tax Officer (TDS), the first respondent. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner had filed appeals (Ext. P2) and stay applications (Ext. P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. These appeals and stay applications were pending consideration. The writ petitions were filed seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious consideration of their stay applications (Ext. P3) pending before the second respondent, in light of the pending appeals (Ext. P2) against the orders of the first respondent. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the situation would be adequately addressed if a direction is issued to the second respondent to decide on the stay applications submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner relies on the general principle of seeking timely relief from appellate authorities. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department was heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 8TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.29147 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: M/S.D.J.AMUSEMENTS, CHATHANKANDATH HOUSE, MANKARA POST, PALAKKAD- 678614, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, C.K.DINESHKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD- 678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680001. SC,IT- SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2 WP(C).Nos.29147,29149 and 29150 OF 2020(P) SHAJI P.CHALY, J. =============================== W.P.(C) Nos.29147, 29149 and 29150 of 2020 =============================== Dated this the 29th day of December, 2020 JUDGMENT The captioned writ petitions are filed by one and the same partner ship firm challenging Ext. P1 order of the first respondent. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and P3 stay application in all the writ petitions before the second respondent, which are pending consideration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that situation would suffice, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 stay application submitted by the petitioners. Therefore, after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Department this writ petitions are disposed of

3 WP(C).Nos.29147,29149 and 29150 OF 2020(P) directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay applications submitted by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeals and take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time coercive action if any shall be kept in abeyance.

Sd/- SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE rpk

4 WP(C).Nos.29147,29149 and 29150 OF 2020(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 20.05.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 27.06.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 27.06.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.14025/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13.07.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →