M/S.ISPG TENCHOLOGIES INDIA PVT.LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/9190/2014HC KeralaKLHC01054816201428 March 20143 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II) to consider and 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 further ordered that coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 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 and the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. ISPG Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., is aggrieved by an assessment order dated January 31, 2014, for Assessment Year 2011-12. They filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, the second respondent. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the pendency of these proceedings, the respondents are initiating coercive steps, as evidenced by Ext.P5. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court of Kerala to intercept these coercive measures. The writ petition was filed seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and to keep coercive proceedings in abeyance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition expeditiously, and to keep coercive proceedings in abeyance pending such consideration? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps were being pursued despite the pendency of their appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority, necessitating judicial intervention. They relied on the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Government Pleader was heard, but does not detail specific arguments made by the revenue.

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 FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/7TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 9190 of 2014 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M/S. ISPG TENCHOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., 28/118A, PARAPPILLIL LANE PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR DHANYA K.G.

BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1), O/O. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4TH FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING - I I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II OPP. SRV HIGH SCHOOL ERNAKULAM, COCHIN -16.

R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 9190 of 2014 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DATED 31.1.2014. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO. 35 DATED 10.3.2014. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.3.2014. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.3.2014. EXT.P4(a) COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. EXT.P4(b) COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXT.P5 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. AABC19559A/W-1(1)/KOCHI/STAY/2013-14 DATED 25.3.2014. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ======================== W.P.(C). No. 9190 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2014 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order, 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, as borne by Ext.P5, 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 pursuant to Ext. P5 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 →