MARIYAMMA JOSEPH, PROP. HOTEL FLORAL PARK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE

WP(C)/32071/2014HC KeralaKLHC01077689201401 December 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance until such time as the stay petition is decided. The operative direction is to ensure that the petitioner's right to seek a stay is addressed before any recovery action is taken. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment order was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mariyamma Joseph, proprietor of Hotel Floral Park, is aggrieved by an assessment order dated March 28, 2013, for the assessment year 2010-11, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kottayam. She filed an appeal and a stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cochin. The petitioner's grievance is that coercive steps are being taken by the respondents despite the pendency of her appeal and stay petition. She has approached the High Court of Kerala by way of a writ petition seeking intervention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether coercive steps can be proceeded with by the revenue authorities while an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that coercive steps are being pursued without regard to the pending appeal and stay petition, which is causing prejudice. The petitioner relies on the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the second respondent. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the context implies the revenue's intention to proceed with recovery actions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).No.32071 of 2014 (H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MARIYAMMA JOSEPH,PROP.HOTEL FLORAL PARK, GANDHI NAGAR P.O.,KOTTAYAM - 686 008. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SMT.SOUMYA PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), COCHIN,ERNAKULAM-682018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pk

WP(C).No.32071 of 2014 (H) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2013 FOR THE YEAR 2010 - 11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 2011. EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y 2010 - 2011. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ======================== W.P.(C). No. 32071 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2014 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 petition for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. kp/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →