Loading High Court cases…
527 orders · Page 3 of 11
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that all proceedings for the recovery of amounts due under the penalty order (Ext.P1), as confirmed by the First Appellate Authority (Ext.P2), shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the penalty or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application and the potential for coercive recovery.
The High Court held that Ext.P2 order did not suffer from any vice requiring it to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court found merit in the revenue's contention that the 2nd respondent had considered the petitioner's written submissions, even if an oral hearing was not extended. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the 2nd respondent had not relegated the stay petition's consideration to the assessing officer but had merely directed the assessing officer to calculate the amounts payable as per the order. However, acknowledging the petitioner's submission that the condition for stay was onerous, the Court, to shorten litigation, disposed of the writ petition by directing that the demands for assessment year 2016-2017 would remain stayed pending disposal of the appeal, provided the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores in three equal installments commencing from December 15, 2022. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court of Kerala, taking note of the submission by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department, closed the writ petition. The Court clarified that if the petitioner files the return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 along with the admitted tax and interest payable thereon on or before December 31, 2023, the same shall be processed in accordance with law. The Court did not issue any specific direction for filing the return but acknowledged the statutory timeline available to the petitioner. The principle established is that statutory remedies and timelines should be adhered to, and court intervention is not necessary for routine compliance unless there is a clear impediment or illegality.
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) before the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) and that this appeal was pending consideration, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps would be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The specific merits of the Section 80P deduction claim or the applicability of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment were not decided by the High Court in this writ petition, as the matter was remitted to the appellate authority.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the appeal. Instead, it observed that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was pending consideration. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the pending appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously. Additionally, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court's action was procedural.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P7) within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This decision was made after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court further directed that all further proceedings for recovery of any amount due from the petitioner under the assessment order (Ext.P6) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed in the appeal. This stay is conditional upon the petitioner remitting the first installment payable in terms of the impugned order (Ext.P15) within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the grounds of appeal, focusing instead on procedural fairness and expediting the appellate process.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P11) filed in the appeal (Ext.P10). This consideration is to be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay petition, any steps to recover amounts due in terms of Ext.P9 are to be kept in abeyance. The court noted the limited nature of the relief sought. No specific issue regarding the merits of the income tax assessment was decided.
The High Court held that both Ext.P4 (rectification order) and Ext.P7 (penalty order) were issued without affording the petitioner any opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court directed that any demands arising from these orders shall be kept in abeyance until the appeal is disposed of by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) was directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 appeal within six months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Until the appeal is decided, recovery proceedings for amounts due under Exts.P4 and P7 are to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the rectification or penalty orders themselves, focusing on the procedural lapse.
The High Court held that the procedure contemplated by Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be complied with before an officer proceeds to the stage of issuing a notice under Section 148. The Court observed that Ext.P5 did not demonstrate that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the order was issued. It specifically referred to Section 148A(b), which indicates that an order can only be issued after providing an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the Court quashed Ext.P5. The matter was remanded to the file of the 1st respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), who was directed to issue fresh orders after following the procedure contemplated by Section 148A(b), including affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 21.11.2022 at 11 AM. The 1st respondent was to hear the petitioner, consider the reply and any documents submitted in response to Ext.P3, and take a fresh decision within one month from 21.11.2022. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with law within two months from the date of the order. Furthermore, the court ordered that any demand pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed on the stay petition. The principle established is that a taxpayer facing recovery while an appeal and stay petition are pending before the appellate authority can seek a direction from the High Court to hold recovery proceedings in abeyance until the stay petition is decided.
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the 3rd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to provide a link to the petitioner for filing a stay petition in their appeal (Ext.P2) within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that if the petitioner files a stay petition within ten days of the link being provided, any recovery proceedings initiated to recover amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of enabling the filing of a stay petition.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay (Ext.P3). If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent is further directed to pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P4) after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is to endeavor to pass orders on both applications within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, until orders are passed on Exts.P3 and P4, any recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court clarified that if the delay is not condoned, there will be no need to pass an order on the stay application, and recovery proceedings can proceed. The principle is that procedural applications for condonation of delay and stay must be considered before coercive recovery measures are initiated, subject to the outcome of the delay condonation.
The High Court of Kerala quashed the assessment order (Ext.P5) solely on the ground that an unexplained cash deposit of Rs.13,13,200/- had been mistakenly treated as Rs.13,13,20,000/-. The Court clarified that it had not found any other mistake in the assessment order. The reasoning was based on the admitted factual error by the Income Tax Department, corroborated by the bank's letter confirming the correct deposit amount. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order based on a demonstrably incorrect factual premise, especially concerning the quantum of a deposit, can be set aside. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order and permit the assessing officer to complete the assessment afresh in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner. No other issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. While acknowledging the revenue's submission that paragraph 2 of Ext.P10 indicated that an opportunity was provided, the Court noted the petitioner's contention that the revisional authority had not considered Ext.P11, an order from the ITAT concerning similar assessment years. Without making any observations on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to raise all its contentions before the revisional authority. Consequently, Ext.P10 (the Commissioner's order) was set aside. The 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax) was directed to reconsider the matter after providing a hearing to the petitioner. All contentions raised by the petitioner, including the applicability of Ext.P11, were left open to be raised before the revisional authority. The Court also directed that the status quo should continue until the revisional authority passed final orders.
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that until orders are passed on the stay petition, all proceedings for recovery of amounts due under the order of assessment (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The principle here is that the appellate authority should be given an opportunity to decide on the stay application, and recovery should be stalled in the interim to protect the assessee's interests.
The High Court held that the order of assessment (Ext.P4) should be set aside. The Court reasoned that the assessment order was issued without taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Supra). The Court found this sufficient to quash the order, notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without considering a binding Supreme Court judgment is unsustainable. The Court quashed Ext.P4 and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and taking into account the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Supra) expeditiously.
The High Court of Kerala, acknowledging the significant delay of approximately six years in the disposal of the petitioner's appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the proceedings, held that the interests of justice demand a time-bound disposal of these appeals. The Court directed the 5th respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III) to consider and dispose of the appeals (Ext.P5, Ext.P5(a), Ext.P5(b), and Ext.P5(c)) expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of the order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, all coercive recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P8 were directed to be kept in abeyance until the appeals are disposed of. No specific issue was left undecided; the court focused on procedural relief.
The High Court condoned the delay of 130 days in filing the appeal, considering the petitioner's hospitalization. The 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal on merits, treating it as filed within time, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the demands arising from the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the penalty orders (Exts.P3 and P4) were directed to be kept in abeyance until orders were passed on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2). The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the penalty orders themselves, but rather addressed the procedural aspects and the stay of demands pending the appellate decision. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of demonstrable hardship like hospitalization, courts may condone delays and grant interim relief by staying demands pending appeal, ensuring a fair hearing.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer failed to record specific satisfaction linking the seized material to the assessee, which is a mandatory pre-condition for assessment under Section 153C. This omission vitiates the assessments.
The High Court held that the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer who conducted the search is a mandatory prerequisite for issuing a notice under Section 158BD. Without such satisfaction, the proceedings are illegal.
The High Court held that the assessments made under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were vitiated due to the failure of the Assessing Officer to record a specific satisfaction as to how the recovered material belonged to the assessee and had a nexus with the assessee's income. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction required under Section 153C(1) must be a reasoned one, demonstrating an application of mind, and not a mechanical one. The judgment referred to various precedents, including RRJ Securities, Pepsico Holdings India Ltd., and Nikki Drugs, which underscore the necessity of such a specific satisfaction. The Court found that the satisfaction recorded, as presented in Annexure-C, did not meet this requirement. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration and fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Court also noted that other findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal did not consider the precedents relied upon by the assessee, leading to the setting aside of those findings as well. The assessee was granted liberty to raise additional grounds.
The High Court held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 153A were vitiated due to the failure of the Assessing Officer to record a specific satisfaction linking the seized materials to the assessee. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction must be application of mind and not a mechanical one, citing precedents like RRJ Securities, Pepsico Holdings India Ltd., and Nikki Drugs. The Court noted that the satisfaction recorded by the searching officer before making over the material to the officer having jurisdiction on the assessee is necessary. The Court found that the satisfaction recorded in Annexure-C did not meet the statutory requirement. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remitted the matters to the Tribunal for reconsideration and fresh disposal in accordance with law. The assessee was granted liberty to raise additional grounds within eight weeks. The appeals were allowed as indicated, and the matters were remanded.
The Tribunal held that Rule 3C of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Rules, 1976, did not have independent existence due to the omission of Section 4(2B) of the Act, making the penalty imposed unsustainable. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings.
The High Court held that the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer who conducted the search is a sine qua non for issuing notice under Section 158BD of the Act. The Court noted that it was not the case of the Revenue that any satisfaction, in whatever way recorded by the searching officer, was available. The contrary situation was that material alone, without recording satisfaction, was made over to the Assessing Officer, which resulted in the issuance of notice under Section 158BD. The Court found this procedure to be illegal. Consequently, the order of assessment, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, was liable to be set aside and was accordingly set aside. The questions of law were answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The Income Tax Appeal was allowed. The second appeal (ITA No. 2/2018), which challenged an order in a Miscellaneous Petition to take note of the CBDT circular, was rendered moot by the decision in the first appeal and was therefore closed.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P6) within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court ordered that any proceedings for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner under the assessment order (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim or the delay in filing the return. The primary direction was procedural, focusing on the expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the Tribunal.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer failed to record specific satisfaction linking the seized material to the assessee, which is a mandatory pre-condition for assessment under Section 153C. This omission vitiates the assessments.
The High Court held that the assessment order (Ext.P4) was liable to be set aside because it failed to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which had reversed the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. CIT. The Court found this error significant enough to warrant setting aside the order, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy. Consequently, Ext.P4 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the National Faceless Assessment Centre for fresh consideration in accordance with law, taking into account the Supreme Court's observations. The principle established is that assessment orders must be based on the prevailing law as determined by the Apex Court, even if it means disregarding a lower court's precedent that has been overturned.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the appeal. Instead, it directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (the 3rd respondent), to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also granted a stay on coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The primary focus was on procedural expediency rather than substantive legal determination.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the National Faceless Appeal Centre to provide a link to the petitioner for filing her stay petition within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that if the petitioner files the stay petition within ten days of receiving the link, coercive steps to recover amounts due under the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until the National Faceless Appeal Centre decides the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the stay petition itself, but facilitated its filing.
The High Court of Kerala, on November 1, 2022, took on record the statement made by the counsel for the appellant, City Centre Builders & Developers, that the prayers in the appeal were not being pressed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. No findings were made on the merits of the case, and no specific relief was granted or denied based on the substantive grounds of appeal. The ITAT order dated August 23, 2016, remains unchallenged on its merits due to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated November 1, 2022, decided to close the writ petition. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition could be closed because there were no instructions from the party. The court accepted this submission and proceeded to close the case. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the representation of the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition can be closed if the petitioner's counsel states there are no instructions from the party, especially in circumstances where the key individual involved has passed away.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the audit report (Ext.P4) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This consideration must be after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that any demand raised pursuant to the intimation under Section 143(1) (Ext.P3) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on Ext.P4. The principle established is that coercive recovery of tax demand should be stayed pending the decision on a crucial procedural application that could impact the assessee's eligibility for exemption.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court further directed that pending the consideration of the stay petition, any steps initiated for the recovery of amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of ensuring no recovery actions are taken while the stay application is under consideration. The principle established is that a taxpayer can seek a stay on recovery proceedings pending the disposal of their appeal, especially when they have a strong arguable case based on precedent.
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances and the limited nature of the relief sought, disposed of the writ petition. The 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) was directed to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P3) after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This consideration and order are to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court directed that until orders are passed on the stay application, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the stay application itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the stay application is considered promptly.
The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the stay petition within six weeks. Until then, the revenue recovery proceedings were to be kept in abeyance.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was pending. Therefore, the High Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the pending appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps would be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order until the appeal was disposed of. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court deferred to the appellate process.
The High Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. The Court granted this permission. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Court explicitly reserved the liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition concerning the same cause of action. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying dispute, and no specific findings or ratio decidendi were established, as the matter was disposed of on a procedural request.
The High Court acknowledged that the non-consideration of a Division Bench judgment of the High Court by the Assessing Officer is normally a matter to be taken up in appeal. However, to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner, the Court quashed the assessment order (Ext.P5) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer (1st respondent). The Assessing Officer is directed to complete the assessment afresh after taking note of the Division Bench judgment (Ext.P6). The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that the Assessing Authority is free to decide the case in accordance with the law, including consideration of Ext.P6. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
The High Court acknowledged that the Assessing Officer did not consider the Division Bench judgment of the High Court. While normally such a lapse would be a matter for appeal, the Court, to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner, quashed the assessment order (Ext.P9). The matter was remitted to the 2nd respondent (Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre) to complete the assessment afresh. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that the Assessing Authority was free to decide the case in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment (Ext.P10). The ratio decidendi is that while procedural lapses like ignoring a binding precedent are typically for appeal, courts may intervene under Article 226 to prevent hardship, by remanding the matter for fresh consideration with due regard to the precedent.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it acknowledged that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P4) before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was pending consideration. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the assessing officer erred in rejecting the deduction under Section 80P was not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner (Ext.P3) before the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)), deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal expeditiously. The Court issued a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim itself, leaving that to the appellate authority.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition. Noting that the garnishee proceedings had already been withdrawn and that the petitioner had settled demands for three assessment years under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and made a 20% pre-deposit for the remaining assessment year (2017-18) while an appeal was pending, the Court directed that any recovery proceedings for the demand arising from assessment year 2017-18 would stand suspended until the petitioner's appeal is heard and decided. The operative direction was to suspend recovery proceedings for AY 2017-18 pending appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to provide a link to the petitioner for uploading its stay application within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was directed to file the stay application within 10 days of receiving the link. If the stay application is filed within the stipulated time, recovery proceedings under Ext.P2 will be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay application. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the findings of the High Court in Ext.P7 judgment while deciding the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the stay application itself, but facilitated its filing and consideration.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to provide a link to the petitioner for uploading a stay application in the appeal preferred by him. This was to be done within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was then required to file the stay application within 10 days of receiving the link. If the stay application was filed within the stipulated time, recovery proceedings for any amount due under the assessment order (Ext. P9) would be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the stay application. The Court did not decide on the merits of the stay itself but facilitated the process for the petitioner to file one.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the National Faceless Appeal Centre to provide a link to the petitioner for uploading the stay application in the appeal preferred by it. This action is to be completed within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner is then required to file the stay application within ten days of receiving the link. If the stay application is filed within the stipulated time, recovery steps will be deferred until a decision is made on the stay application. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the jurisdictional issue, focusing solely on facilitating the filing of the stay application.
The High Court, after hearing both parties, decided to dispose of the writ petition with a specific direction. The Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any demand arising from the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is made on the stay petition. The principle derived is that the appellate authority should expedite the decision on stay petitions to prevent prejudice to the assessee, and recovery should be deferred during this period.
The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the National Faceless Appeal Centre to consider the stay applications filed by the petitioner. Specifically, Ext.P3 stay application in Ext.P2 appeal, Ext.P6 stay application in Ext.P5 appeal, Ext.P9 stay application in Ext.P8 appeal, and Ext.P12 stay application in Ext.P11 appeal are to be considered. The Appellate Authority must afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide these stay petitions within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court held that until orders are passed on these stay applications, the demands pertaining to the penalty orders and assessment orders shall remain stayed. The ratio is that the appellate authority must expedite the decision on stay petitions, and recovery should be held in abeyance during this period to prevent prejudice to the assessee.
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the Writ Petition. The Court permitted the petitioner to pay the balance of the amounts due under the order of assessment in six equal monthly installments. The first installment was to be paid on or before November 30, 2022, and subsequent installments were to be paid on or before the 30th day of each succeeding month. The petitioner was also made liable to pay such interest as may be demanded by the department on the outstanding amounts. The Court did not explicitly decide on the sufficiency of the petitioner's compliance with Section 220(3) but granted relief based on the overall circumstances, including the partial payment made.
The High Court of Kerala, upon consideration of the matter, granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made, as the withdrawal was permitted before any substantive adjudication.
The High Court held that Ext. P8 Office Memorandum does not contain an absolute interdiction against issuing vigilance clearance when a final report has been filed in a case where the applicant is an accused. The OM only states that vigilance clearance can be withheld if a charge has been filed in court by the investigating agency. Since the 1st respondent had already granted permission for the petitioner to travel abroad for ten days, the denial of vigilance clearance based on Ext. P8 was deemed unjustified. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to issue the vigilance clearance certificate immediately upon production of the judgment. Subsequently, the 1st respondent was to issue the no-objection certificate. No issue was expressly left undecided.