E. KRISHNADAS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/30668/2014HC KeralaKLHC01076287201419 November 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance until such time as the stay petition is decided. The petitioner is to produce a copy of the judgment and the writ petition before the second respondent for further action. The issue of the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself was not decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, E. Krishnadas, is aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 19, 2011, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Thrissur, for the assessment year 2009-2010. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Ernakulam, on January 24, 2012, along with a petition for condoning the delay and a stay petition filed on November 10, 2014. The petitioner's grievance is that coercive steps are being taken by the respondents despite the pendency of these proceedings before the appellate authority. The writ petition seeks to intercept these coercive actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents can proceed with coercive steps while an appeal and stay petition are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that coercive steps should not be taken as the appeal and stay petition are pending before the second respondent. The revenue did not present any specific arguments on this point in the judgment.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/28TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(C).No. 30668 of 2014 (G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ E. KRISHNADAS, EARATH HOUSE, MYTHREE GARDENS, ELTHURUTH KARAITTUKARA, THRISSUR 680611 BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), THRISSUR 680001 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, ERNAKULAM 682015 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 30668 of 2014 (G) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 19-12-2011. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24-01-2012. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10-11-2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AK

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30668 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2014. JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent in respect of the assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition for condoning the delay and Ext.P4 petition 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 are sought to be intercepted by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to 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 shall be kept in

W.P.(C) No.30668 of 2014 2 abeyance till such time. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with copy of the writ petition, before the second respondent, for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →