SHRI. ARUN THOMAS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9794/2015HC KeralaKLHC01055634201526 March 2015Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes orders on the stay petition and communicates the same to the petitioner. The Court also directed the respondents to restore the electronic facility available to dealers to the petitioner during the period the stay granted by the judgment is in operation. The judgment does not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but focuses on the procedural aspect of pending recovery actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Arun Thomas, trading as M/s. Kannattu Arun Financiers, is challenging an assessment order dated February 6, 2015, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on February 12, 2015. The petitioner's grievance is that recovery proceedings are being initiated despite the pending stay petition. The petitioner also filed a petition under Section 220(6) before the first respondent on March 20, 2015. A communication from the first respondent was received on March 17, 2015. This writ petition was filed seeking relief from the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order can be initiated before the consideration and disposal of the stay petition filed by the assessee before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the appellate authority under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are proceeding with recovery actions prematurely, before the appellate authority has had an opportunity to decide on the stay petition. The petitioner relies on the principle that recovery should be deferred until the appeal and stay petition are adjudicated. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's counsel. The learned Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 220(6)

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 THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/5TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9794 of 2015 (Y) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SHRI ARUN THOMAS, M/S.KANNATTU ARUN FINANCIERS, M.C. ROAD, CHENGANNUR-689 121.

BY SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN, SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ENNIKKATTIL ESTATE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 647. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

WP(C).No. 9794 of 2015 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06/02/2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 12/02/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 12/02/2015 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S.220(6) ON 20/03/2015 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17/03/2015 SEND BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 9794 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 26th day of March, 2015 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before considering the stay petition, the respondents are taking steps to recover the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing 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.P3 stay petition, preferred by the petitioner before him, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 order, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 2nd respondent passes orders, as directed, in Ext.P3 stay petition and

-2- W.P.(C). No. 9794 of 2015 communicates the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that the respondents shall also restore the electronic facility, that is available to dealers, to the petitioner during the period during which the stay granted by this judgment is in operation. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →