SRI. N.A.BABY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/4292/2015HC KeralaKLHC01050132201511 February 2015Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P5) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent must contain reasons for the decision. Furthermore, coercive steps for the recovery of the penalty due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) are to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes and communicates the order on the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the penalty order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. N.A. Baby, is challenging a penalty order (Ext.P1) dated July 29, 2014, for the assessment year 2008-2009. He filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam (2nd respondent). The petitioner alleges that recovery steps are being pursued for the penalty amount even before the stay petition is considered. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur, is the first respondent. The petitioner also filed an application (Ext.P3) to the first respondent and received an order (Ext.P4) dated December 17, 2014. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P5) within a stipulated period, and if so, what period? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that recovery steps are being pursued prematurely, before the consideration of his stay petition by the appellate authority. He seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised. The revenue was represented by a standing counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/22ND MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 4292 of 2015 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SRI. N.A.BABY, NEREPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, VARAKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM - 682 016. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

WP(C).No. 4292 of 2015 (J) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: - NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ................................................. W.P.(C) No.4292 of 2015 (J) ............................................... Dated this the 11th day of February, 2015 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 penalty order issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008 - 2009, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P5 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are sought to be pursued for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 penalty order. 2. I have heard Sri.Anil D.Nair, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 stay petition, preferred by the petitioner before him, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent shall contain reasons for the decision arrived at by him.

W.P.(C) No.4292 of 2015 (J) 2 Coercive steps for recovery of the penalty due under Ext.P1 penalty order, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 2nd respondent passes orders, as directed above, and communicates the same to the petitioner. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE AMV/11/02/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →