Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17353
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
PADIYATH MOOSA HAJI – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/26605/2021
T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.), NISHA JOHN, V.P. NARAYANAN, SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC
The decision emphasizes the importance of expediting stay petitions in tax appeals to prevent potential irreparable harm.
Headnote:
Stay - Appeal - Income Tax Act Section List - The court directed the appellate authority to expedite the stay petition and maintain the status quo on coercive measures until the decision is made, emphasizing the need for timely justice in pending appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against an assessment order and simultaneously sought to stay the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents, claiming potential irreparable loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the urgency of the situation and ordered that the stay petition be resolved within three months, and suspended any coercive recovery actions until the petition's consideration.
Issues: Whether the court should intervene to ensure timely consideration of the stay petition related to an ongoing appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the necessity of prompt action on stay petitions to prevent harm to the aggrieved party during the pendency of appeals.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of directing timely consideration of the stay petition.
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order for the year
2017-18, petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal before the 3rd respondent. Along with the appeal, a petition for stay was also preferred as evident from Ext.P4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the stay petition as well as the appeal are pending consideration and in the meantime, respondents are initiating proceedings for recovery of the amount and therefore the petitioner will be subject to irreparable loss and hardship, if the appeal is not disposed of.
2. I have heard Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Adv.Jose Joseph.
3. The learned Standing Counsel expresses his apprehension as to whether the appeal itself would have been disposed of by now.
4. Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case and the contentions raised across the bar, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also clarified that if the circumstances warrant, the Appellate Authority shall also be at liberty to take up the appeal and consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon instead of the stay petition.
5. Till consideration of the stay petition, coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. Needless to mention, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law.
It is clarified that the aforesaid direction shall apply only in the event of the appeal pending consideration. If the appeal has already been disposed of, petitioner will have to workout his remedies elsewhere.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26605/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED
11.12.2019 U/S 144 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271F OF THE ACT PASSED BY NFAC, DELHI DATED
01.06.2021.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.02.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED
10.02.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY DATED
18.10.2021 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
