M/S. G.K.GRANITES LTD. vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 1(2)

WP(C)/26363/2013HC KeralaKLHC01069551201329 October 2013Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition (Ext.P5) filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order, after providing notice to the petitioner. The Court further ordered that coercive steps pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be put on hold until orders are passed on the stay petition. The Court also stipulated that the payment made by the petitioner as per the challan (Ext.P2) for Rs. 4,48,462/- should be considered by the second respondent while passing orders on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. G.K. Granites Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a demand notice (Ext.P1) dated December 8, 2011, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle 1(2), Ernakulam. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P3) on January 24, 2012, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order. Simultaneously, a stay petition (Ext.P5) was filed on October 10, 2013, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking a stay on the recovery of disputed tax. The petitioner expressed apprehension of coercive recovery steps before the disposal of the appeal and the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a specified period, and if so, what is the timeframe? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps were being contemplated by the revenue even before the disposal of their appeal and stay petition, necessitating immediate intervention. They relied on the general principle that recovery proceedings should be stayed pending appeal, especially when a stay petition is under consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. The revenue was represented by standing counsel, but their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/7TH KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 26363 of 2013 (U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. G.K.GRANITES LTD., KUREEKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683 562, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. GEORGE ANTONY.

BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 1(2), I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 018.

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv.

W.P.(C).NO.26363/2013-U: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 08/12/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R.1. ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 08/12/2011. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TAX PAID CHALLAN DTD. 20/06/2007 FOR RS.4,48,462/-. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 24/01/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONR BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/01/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD. 10/10/2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv.

V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.26363 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 29th day of October, 2013

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is accompanied by Ext.P5 petition for stay of recovery of the disputed tax. The petitioner is apprehensive of coercive steps even before the disposal of the appeal and the petition for stay aforestated. 2. I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 petition with notice to the petitioner within a period of one month. The coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall be put on hold till orders are passed on Ext.P5 petition as directed above. The payment made by the petitioner as per Ext.P2 challan shall be adverted to by the second respondent while passing orders on Ext.P5 petition. The writ petition is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →