SRI.SUBASH KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,ERNAKULAM

WP(C)/32989/2014HC KeralaKLHC01078607201409 December 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext. P3) expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that coercive proceedings pursuant to the garnishee notice (Ext. P4) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as the stay petition is decided. The petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the judgment before the second respondent for further steps. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Subash Kizhakkeparamibil Chandrasekharan Nair, is challenging an assessment order dated March 30, 2014, for the assessment year 2011-12, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Central Circle-2, Ernakulam (the first respondent). The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext. P2) and a stay petition (Ext. P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ernakulam (the second respondent). The petitioner's grievance is that despite the pendency of these appeals, the ACIT is initiating coercive steps, as evidenced by a garnishee notice (Ext. P4) dated November 20, 2014, issued to the petitioner's bank. The writ petition seeks to intercept these coercive proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition seeking to stay coercive proceedings when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that coercive steps are being taken without regard to the pending appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority, causing prejudice. The petitioner seeks intervention to prevent these actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. The revenue was represented by a Standing Counsel.

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 TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 32989 of 2014 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------- SRI.SUBASH KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARK LANE, KOTTAYAM KERALA 686001 BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.SREEJITH .R.NAIR SMT.SULEKHA BEEVI.C.S SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SMT.SOUMYA PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ERNAKULA 682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERNAKULAM 682 030 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 32989 of 2014 (W) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-3-2014 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 EXT.P4 - TRUE COY OF GARNISHEE NOTICE DATED 20-11-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE BANK AGAINST THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE dlk

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 32989 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 9th day of December, 2014 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Ext. P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent for the assessment year 2011 - '12, the petitioner has already preferred Ext. P2 appeal along with Ext. P3 interlocutory application 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 1st respondent is proceeding with coercive steps, as borne by Ext. P4, which hence is sought to be intercepted.. 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 pursuant to Ext. P4 shall be kept in abeyance till such time.

W.P.(C) No. 32989 of 2014 : 2 : 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. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →