SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
DR. K.M. ASHIK – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43421 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.RAJA KANNAN, SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SMT.VARSHA S. NAMBIAR, SMT.RINI ANNA KURIAN
For the Respondents: SMT.V.K.HEMA, SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS, SHRI.HARIKUMAR G. (GOPINATHAN NAIR)

Recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated without a fresh assessment after a court's order set aside prior decisions.

Headnote:This judgement addresses the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner regarding the assessment order for the year 2007-08 under the Income Tax Act. The Court determined that recovery proceedings could not occur while awaiting a fresh assessment based on its prior judgement set aside existing orders. The Court emphasized the requirement of maintaining the due legal process before any recovery was made. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to ensure no recovery actions were initiated absent fresh assessments aligned with a prior ruling.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenging recovery proceedings under income tax act. (Para 1)
2. court assessment of prior rulings affecting recovery actions. (Para 2 , 3)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act , is aggrieved by the recovery proceedings that are initiated against him, for realising the amount payable by the petitioner as per the order of assessment for the year 2007-08. Infact, the assessment order was challenged by the petitioner and Ext.P2 is the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. The further challenge against the said order, before the Tribunal culminated in Ext.P3 order, by which the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority. Based on Ext.P3 order, Ext.P8 has been passed by the Assessing Officer. Challenging the same, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 appeal, which is now pending before the First Appellate Authority.

2. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal as such, which resulted in Ext.P4 judgment passed by this court, wherein the entire orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority, to consider the matter afresh. Now, the consequential order based on Ext.P4 is awaited. In the meantime, the recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner based on Ext.P8 order. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging the same.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I find that, since this Court in Ext.P4 judgment set aside all the orders so far passed, the recovery proceedings could not have been initiated by the respondents without passing fresh orders, in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to ensure that, no recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner based on Exts.P5 and P7 unless and until a fresh assessment in the light of Ext.P4, is passed by the Assessing Officer.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top