VAKAYIL ABDUL SALEEM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/21675/2013HC KeralaKLHC01064866201302 September 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months, after issuing notice to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that coercive steps for the realization of the amount due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be put on hold until orders are passed on the stay petition as directed. The petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Vakayil Abdul Saleem, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) dated March 22, 2013, passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2, Palakkad, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V. The petitioner also filed a stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) for recovery of the disputed tax during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner apprehended coercive steps for the realization of the amount due under the assessment order. The petitioner had also filed a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the ITO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider the stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) filed by the petitioner. 2. Whether coercive steps for the realization of the amount due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) should be stayed pending consideration of the stay petition. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner sought a direction for the second respondent to consider the stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) and to put coercive steps on hold until an order is passed on the stay petition. The petitioner also filed a stay petition before the first respondent (ITO) (Ext.P3). Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue in the judgment. The judgment notes that the revenue's counsel, Sri. Jose Joseph, was present.

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 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935 WP(C).No. 21675 of 2013 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------- SHRI. VAKAYIL ABDUL SALEEM "SWAPNAKOODU", BEHIND SITARA AUDITORIUM PALLIPURAM ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 303. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR RESPONDENTS : ------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V 6TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN, S.R.V.H.S ROAD KOCHI-682 011. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 21675 of 2013 (H) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------ P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.22.3.2013 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.22.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. P2 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD.6.4.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2(A): COPY OF STAY PETITION DTD.19.8.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF APPLICATION DTD.6.4.2013 FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ITO/W-2/PKD/13-14 DTD.12.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.F.NO.404/10/2009-ITCC DTD.1.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------- NIL //True copy// P.A.to Judge uj.

V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.21675 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2013

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act. The appeal is accompanied by Ext.P2(a) petition for stay of recovery of the disputed tax. The petitioner is apprehensive of coercive steps for realisation of the amount due during the pendency of the appeal and the petition for stay. 2. I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P2(a) petition with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. The coercive steps for realisation of the amount due under Ext.P1 order shall be put on hold till orders are passed on Ext.P2(a) petition as directed above. 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 smm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →