M/S.KERALA CARS (P) LTD. vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI

WP(C)/24946/2013HC KeralaKLHC01068135201310 October 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals - II)) to consider the stay petitions (Exts.P9 to P12) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months, after issuing notice to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that coercive steps pursuant to the recovery notices (Exts.P13 and P14) shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, effectively granting interim relief by staying recovery proceedings pending the disposal of stay petitions by the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kerala Cars (P) Ltd., is challenging assessment orders for assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD). The petitioner filed appeals against these assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals - II) and also filed stay petitions. While these appeals and stay petitions were pending, the petitioner received recovery notices dated August 14, 2013, and September 27, 2013, from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Aggrieved by these recovery notices, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

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, and recovery notices have been issued. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that it was aggrieved by the recovery notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax while its appeals and stay petitions were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to prevent coercive steps. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by its counsel, did not explicitly record arguments against the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case in the judgment. The focus was on the procedural steps to be taken by the appellate authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24946 of 2013 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M/S.KERALA CARS (P) LTD. 508-A, ILLIKKATT BUILDING EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI -24 REPRESENTED BY FINANCE MANAGER JOSE JOSEPH

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI 682 005. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS - II) ERNAKULAM 682 018 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1(2), KOCHI 682 005.

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

WP(C) NO.24946/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010- 2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST EXHIBIT P6 THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST EXHIBIT P7 THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST EXHIBIT P8 THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 AGAINST EXHIBIT P9 2006-07 AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P10 2008-09 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P11 2009-10 AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P12 2010-11 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 24946 OF 2013 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of October, 2013 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed Exts.P5 to P8 appeals against Exts.P1 to P4 orders of assessment. The appeals are accompanied by Exts.P9 to P12 petitions for stay. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P13 and P14 recovery notices served on it in the meanwhile. 2. I direct the second respondent to consider Exts.P9 to P12 petitions for stay with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. The coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P13 and P14 notices shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition with the judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. V. CHITAMBARESH

JUDGE ncd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →