G.PRADEEP KUMAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/9965/2022HC KeralaKLHC01021071202205 April 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit their response to Ext.P10 notice on or before April 22, 2022. Following this, the 1st respondent (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) was directed to consider the petitioner's response and complete the adjudication expeditiously, within one month thereafter. Crucially, the adjudication must be done after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court did not delve into the merits of the revisional proceedings themselves but focused on ensuring a fair procedural opportunity for the assessee. The principle established is that while revisional powers must be exercised, adequate procedural fairness, including reasonable time for response and hearing, should be afforded to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, G. Pradeep Kumar, challenged notices dated March 17, 2022 (Ext.P10 and Ext.P11) issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent). These notices granted five days for the petitioner to appear and complete revisional proceedings. The High Court of Kerala, upon admission, stayed further proceedings and directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. The petitioner's grievance was the short notice period provided for the revisional proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Ext.P10 and Ext.P11) provided sufficient time for the assessee to appear and complete revisional proceedings, considering the short notice period of five days. The assessee contended that the five-day notice period was insufficient to prepare and appear for the revisional proceedings. The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, argued that the petitioner was given sufficient time and instead of cooperating, chose to approach the High Court on the eve of the scheduled appearance. The revenue also submitted that the petitioner could participate in the proceedings and obtain an adjudication as per law.

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 TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 9965 OF 2022 PETITIONER: G.PRADEEP KUMAR AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE K V GOPALAN ACHARI, VIJAYAPURATH HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM P O, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689102. BY ADVS. SADCHITH.P.KURUP C.P.ANIL RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. 2 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVALLA MAIN BRANCH, M C ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689101. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH - SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 9965 OF 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9965 of 2022 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2022 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 notices issued to the petitioner dated 17/3/2022, granting 5 days time to appear and complete the revisional proceedings pending before the 1st respondent. On the date of admission, this Court had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 and directed the learned Standing Counsel to get an instruction. 2. Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel upon instructions submitted that, the petitioner was given sufficient time as mentioned in Ext.P10 and that instead of co-operating with the proceedings, they thought it fit to move this Court on the eve of the date fixed for appearance. It was also submitted that the petitioner can

WP(C) NO. 9965 OF 2022 3 participate in the proceedings and get an adjudication as contemplated under law. 3. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer their response to Ext.P10 notice on or before 22/4/2022 and thereafter, the 1st respondent shall consider the response and complete the adjudication as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month thereafter, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM 6/4/22

WP(C) NO. 9965 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9965/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CON.CASE NO.1848/2019 IN WPC NO.4561/2019. Exhibit P2 COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.01.2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.02.2022 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT BANK. Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21.02.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22.02.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.3.2022 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.3.2022 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 COPY OF REPLY DATED 7.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P9 COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 9.3.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC 7826/2022. Exhibit P10 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P11 COPY OF COMPUTER GENERATED SLIP DATED 17.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →