Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Kerala HC Refuses to Exercise Writ Jurisdiction parallelly when Income Tax Appellate Authority Seized the Recovery Proceedings [Read Order]

Kerala HC Refuses to Exercise Writ Jurisdiction parallelly when Income Tax Appellate Authority Seized the Recovery Proceedings [Read Order]
X

The Kerala High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction parallelly when the Income Tax Appellate Authority seized the recovery proceedings. M/s Prathibha Traders, the petitioner prayed to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal and stay petition by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. To grant the petitioner other identical reliefs...


The Kerala High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction parallelly when the Income Tax Appellate Authority seized the recovery proceedings.

M/s Prathibha Traders, the petitioner prayed to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal and stay petition by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. To grant the petitioner other identical reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.

The assessment proceedings were completed regarding the income of the petitioner for the assessment years 2017-18 vide the order dated 26.03.2022.  The total income of the petitioner for the said period has been assessed as Rs.34,14,093/- under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 

On the said income, a demand notice has been issued and penalty proceedings have been directed to be initiated. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner has filed an appeal along with a stay petition before the 2nd respondent.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the appeal has been filed on time, i.e. on 06.04.2023, no decision has been taken on the appeal or the stay application and in the meantime the petitioner is facing recovery proceedings in respect of the tax assessed on the income of the petitioner by the order.  The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is directed to decide the appeal and stay application in a time-bound manner and till a decision is taken on the application and stay application, no coercive proceedings against the petitioner can be initiated.

When the appellate authority seized the matter, the single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh would not like to exercise its writ jurisdiction parallelly. It would be sufficient to direct the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal pending before it by the law within two months, and if it is not possible to decide the appeal finally within two months, the stay application be decided within two months from today by the law.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE 

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates 

Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019