P.MOIDEEN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5523/2014HC KeralaKLHC01051152201425 February 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.P2(a)) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Coercive proceedings pursuant to the communication dated June 28, 2013 (Ext.P4) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until such time as the stay petition is decided. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment or the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. P. Modeen, is aggrieved by the assessment order dated March 13, 2013, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kannur, for the assessment year 2010-2011. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with a stay petition. Previously, he had filed a stay petition before the Assessing Officer, which was not granted, and he was directed to satisfy the liability as specified in a communication dated June 28, 2013. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala because no orders had been passed by the Appellate Authority on his appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory appeals and stay petitions are pending before the appellate authority? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that no orders have been passed by the Appellate Authority on his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P2(a)), necessitating the writ petition. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case. It only notes that the learned Government Pleader was heard.

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 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/6TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 5523 of 2014 (M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHRI.P.MODEEN, PARETH HOUSE, PAMBURTHI, P.O. NARATH, KANNUR-670 601. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KANNUR-670 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYYAKKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd.

WP(C).No. 5523 of 2014 (M) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13-03-2013 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 16-05-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24-07-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION 16-05-2013 DATED 12-10-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28-06-2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.5523 OF 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2014. JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Ext. P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent in respect of the assessment year 2010-2011, the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P2(a) petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the second respondent. 2. Even though the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P3 petition for stay, the petitioner was not granted the relief as sought for, but for directing the petitioner as per Ext.P4 communication to satisfy the liability in the manner specified therein. 3. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. T.M. Sreedharan, appearing for the petitioner submits that, no orders have been passed by the Appellate Authority on Exts.P2 and P2(a) and hence the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

W.P.C.No.5523 of 2014 2 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2(a) 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. 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →