K.T.IBRAHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/23808/2013HC KeralaKLHC01066997201330 September 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH5 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 petitioner's petitions for condonation of delay and stay of recovery of penalty amounts within a period of two months, after issuing notice to the petitioner. In the interim, coercive steps pursuant to the penalty orders (Exhibit P1 series) were ordered to be put on hold. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent for compliance. The court did not decide on the merits of the penalty orders or the appeals themselves, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the timely consideration of interim relief applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K.T. Ibrahim, operating as K T C Vegetables, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges multiple penalty orders (Exhibit P1 series) issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward II, Palakkad, for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The petitioner had filed appeals (Exhibit P2 series) against these penalty orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). These appeals were accompanied by petitions for condonation of delay (Exhibit P3 series) and stay of recovery of the disputed amounts (Exhibit P4 series). The petitioner expressed apprehension of coercive recovery steps before the disposal of the appeals and delay condonation petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should consider the petitions for condonation of delay and stay of recovery of penalty amounts. (Question of procedure) The petitioner contended that they have filed appeals against the penalty orders and are seeking condonation of delay and stay of recovery. They are concerned about coercive steps being taken before these interim applications are decided. The revenue's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.

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 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/8TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 23808 of 2013 (A) PETITIONER(S): ---------------- K.T.IBRAHIM K T C VEGETABLES, MAIN ROAD, PATTAMBI PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD II, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 23808 of 2013 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P1(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P1(B)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P1(C)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P1(D)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P1(E)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P1(F)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR EXHIBIT-P1(G)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR EXHIBIT-P1(H)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2012 FOR THE YEAR EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED EXHIBIT-P2(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED EXHIBIT-P2(B)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED EXHIBIT-P2(C)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED EXHIBIT-P2(D)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED EXHIBIT-P2(E)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED EXHIBIT-P2(F)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED

W.P. (C) No.23808 of 2013 : 2 : EXHIBIT-P2(G)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED EXHIBIT-P2(H)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P3(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PEITIONER EXHIBIT-P3(B)-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PEITIONER EXHIBIT-P3(C)-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PEITIONER EXHIBIT-P3(D)-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PEITIONER EXHIBIT-P3(E)-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PEITIONER EXHIBIT-P3(F)-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PEITIONER EXHIBIT-P3(G)-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PEITIONER EXHIBIT-P3(H)-TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PEITIONER EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P4(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P4(B)-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P4(C)-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P4(D)-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P4(E)-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P4(F)-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

W.P. (C) No.23808 of 2013 : 3 : EXHIBIT-P4(G)-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P4(H)-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: Nil. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE.

V.CHITAMBARESH, J. ------------------------------- W.P (C) No.23808 of 2013 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2013 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 series appeals against Ext.P1 series orders imposing penalty. The appeals are accompanied by Ext.P3 series petitions for condonation of delay and Ext.P4 petitions for stay of recovery of the disputed amounts. The petitioner is apprehensive of coercive steps even before the disposal of the appeals and the petitions for condonation of delay and for stay. 2. I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 series petitions for condonation of delay and Ext.P4 series petitions for stay with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. The coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 series orders 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. nj.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →