VAJRA PLASTICS vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/7251/2022HC KeralaKLHC01015899202207 March 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while considering the writ petition, directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner are to be kept in abeyance. The Court found that the writ petition itself could be disposed of with this direction, thereby addressing the petitioner's immediate concern of coercive action. The substantive merits of the appeal or the stay petition were not decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vajra Plastics, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18, marked as Ext.P1. They have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent, as Ext.P2, and simultaneously filed a petition for stay of proceedings, Ext.P3. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery actions before their stay petition is adjudicated. Consequently, they have filed this writ petition seeking intervention. The assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aluva, the first respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of coercive proceedings pending the disposal of their appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that they are facing imminent coercive proceedings and seeks a direction to prevent such actions until their stay petition is considered by the appellate authority. They rely on the principle that recovery should be stayed pending the decision on a stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the writ petition. However, the presence of the revenue as respondents indicates their involvement in the assessment and recovery process.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 7251 OF 2022 PETITIONER: VAJRA PLASTICS XI/140A INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, A.M.ROAD, ERUMATHALA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683 112, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.M.M.ABDUL JABBAR BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU EDATHARA VINEETA KRISHNAN ARAVIND SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, ALUVA, ALUVA RANGE, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683 101 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM , KERALA-682 036 OTHER PRESENT: ADV. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM --SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 7251 OF 2022 -:2:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7251 of 2022 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2022 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2017-18, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition. 2. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction. 3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay

WP(C) NO. 7251 OF 2022 -:3:- petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

WP(C) NO. 7251 OF 2022 -:4:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7251/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 13.12.2019. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.01.2020. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →