SHRI. PARAKKADATH SIMON VARGHESE, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/3024/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008979202005 February 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P-2(a)) filed in the appeal (Ext.P-2). The court emphasized that this should be done after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The court further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Parakkadath Simon Varghese, is challenging an order (Ext.P-1) by filing an appeal (Ext.P-2) and a stay petition (Ext.P-2(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III. The petitioner's primary grievance is that coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for the disputed amounts while the stay petition is pending. The petitioner is represented by Smt. Nisha John, and the respondents are represented by Sri. Christopher Abraham, Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue can initiate coercive recovery proceedings for disputed amounts during the pendency of a stay petition filed against an order of the assessing authority, and if so, what is the appropriate course of action for the appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that coercive recovery should be stayed as they have filed an appeal and a stay petition before the CIT(A). They contend that initiating recovery while the stay is pending defeats the purpose of the appeal and stay mechanism. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the initiation of coercive recovery proceedings during the pendency of the stay petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3024 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: SHRI. PARAKKADATH SIMON VARGHESE, PARAKKADATH HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH, THRISSUR 680 125. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX KOCHI. 2 THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, 28/243, “POORNIMA”, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3024 of 2020 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2020 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P-1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P-2 appeal and Ext.P-2(a) stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts. 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.P-2(a) stay application filed in Ext.P-2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks

W.P.(C). No. 3024 / 2020 ..3.. from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG

W.P.(C). No. 3024 / 2020 ..4.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE 29.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY- 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 28.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017- 18. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →