U.K.YOUSUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/26262/2013HC KeralaKLHC01069450201328 October 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of the order, after issuing notice to the petitioner. Pending the disposal of the appeal, coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be put on hold. This stay was made conditional upon the petitioner remitting a total sum of ₹5,00,000/- within two weeks. The court clarified that any amount already paid by the petitioner, such as the ₹2,00,000/- remitted on October 21, 2013, would be credited towards this ₹5,00,000/- figure. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing on procedural relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, U.K. Yousuf, proprietor of M/s. M.K. Traders, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order dated December 22, 2011, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kasargod. The petitioner had filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II on January 10, 2012. The petitioner was facing coercive proceedings from the revenue despite the pendency of his appeal. A notice dated October 17, 2013, was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner had already remitted ₹2,00,000/- towards the assessment order on October 21, 2013.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by directing expedited disposal and stay of coercive proceedings. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that coercive proceedings were being initiated against him even before his appeal against the assessment order was disposed of. He sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of his appeal and a stay on any coercive actions. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. However, the court's order implies a condition for staying coercive steps, suggesting the revenue's interest in securing the tax demand.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/6TH KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 26262 of 2013 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- U.K.YOUSUF, 35 YEARS OF AGE S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN PROPRIETOR, M/S. M.K. TRADERS MAIN ROAD, HOSANGADI KASARGOD 671 322.

BY ADV. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, KASARGOD 671 121. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II 4TH FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK, AYYAKKAR BHAVAN MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001.

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 26262/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 22.12.2011 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10.01.2012. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10.01.2012 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 17.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26262 OF 2013 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2013 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner faces coercive proceedings even before the disposal of Ext.P2 appeal. 2. I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal with notice to the petitioner. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months. 3. The coercive steps as against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a total sum of `5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) within a period of two weeks. 4. The petitioner asserts that he has already remitted a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards Ext.P1 order with the first respondent on 21.10.2013. It is clarified that such

WP(C) No. 26262/2013 payments if any shall be given credit to in arriving at the total figure of `5 lakhs for compliance of the condition. The Writ Petition is disposed of. V. CHITAMBARESH

JUDGE ncd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →