JACOB THOMAS, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/5841/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015471202027 February 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found a prima facie case for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (appellate authority) to dispose of the stay petition. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petition as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jacob Thomas, filed an appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. He also filed a stay petition along with the appeal. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of his stay petition expeditiously. The petitioner contended that the delay in deciding the stay petition would allow the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings, rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The High Court perused the relevant documents and found a case for issuing directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure/administrative law). The assessee argued that the mere filing of an appeal or its pendency does not constitute a stay. He contended that the delay in disposing of the stay petition allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, which could render the appeal infructuous. The assessee relied on the statutory provisions for protecting the appellant's interest pending appeal, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of stay orders. The Revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

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 S.V.BHATTI THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5841 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER: JACOB THOMAS, 1- MULAMOOTIL, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 641. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SHRI.VIPIN ANTO H.M. SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - THIRUVALLA. PATHANAMTHITTA 689 641. 2 THE COMMISSIONER INCOME OF TAX(APPEALS), KOTTAYAM 686 001. BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.5841 OF 2020(E) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P3 stay petition results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for

WP(C).No.5841 OF 2020(E) 3 protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the order on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Ext.P3. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The

appellate

authority/second respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 stay petition as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. SD/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE DCS

WP(C).No.5841 OF 2020(E) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 13/01-2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 10.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 06/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →