THOMAS DANIEL, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/9/2019HC KeralaKLHC01004448201910 January 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not legally and validly presented due to the non-payment of court fees. Consequently, the appeal was returned to the appellant's counsel.

What were the facts?

The appellant failed to pay the deficit court fee for the appeal presented to the High Court. This deficiency was not rectified by the assessee despite the opportunity.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the appeal presentation due to non-payment of the required court fees.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944 ITA NO. 9 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ITA 68/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT:

THOMAS DANIEL, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.T.K.DANIEL, INDIKATTIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689698.

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA

RESPONDENT:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA- 689101.

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA 9/2019 -2-

JUDGMENT

S.V.Bhatti, J.

Heard Adv. Krishna. K for the appellant and Senior Adv. P.K.R Menon for the respondent. 2. Read the order dated 05.01.2023.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant informs the Court that the deficit court fee payable is not paid and could not be paid till date by the assessee. 3. It is not in dispute that, as per the ad valorem court fee payable at the relevant time, the appellant has not paid the court fee. Therefore, the presentation of appeal cannot be treated as legal and valid. Hence, we direct the Registry to return the appeal to the counsel for the appellant. Upon our dictating the above order, counsel appearing for the appellant

ITA 9/2019 -3-

requests the Court to grant liberty to the appellant to do the needful in accordance with law.

The statement is placed on record. Liberty, as prayed for in accordance with law, is granted. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

ITA 9/2019 -4-

APPENDIX OF ITA 9/2019

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE IT ACT,1961 IN THE CASE OF THE MANAGING PARTNER M/S POPULAR TRADERS FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 Annexure R(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE IT ACT 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE MANAGING PARTNER M/S POPULAR DEALERS FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 Annexure R(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE IT ACT 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE MANAGING PARTNER M/S POPULAR PRINTERS FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVALLA FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 30.12.2016. ANNEXURE B COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM DATED 22.01.2018. ANNEXURE C COPY OF ORDER IN ITA NO.68/COCH/2018 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN DATED 12.11.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →