Case Law Details
Punathil Nishriya Vs ITO (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: A recent judgment by the Kerala High Court in the case of Punathil Nishriya vs. ITO raises important considerations regarding the authority of the Commissioner in quasi-judicial matters and the impact of CBDT Office Memorandums. The court’s decision allows for the deposition of orders with amounts less than 20% during pending appeals.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner in this case sought to challenge an order dated 20.07.2023 (Ext.P4) and requested the court to direct the 1st respondent (Income Tax Officer) to reconsider their stay application (Ext.P3). Additionally, a writ of mandamus was sought against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to expedite the consideration and resolution of their statutory appeal (Exhibit P2).
The Kerala High Court, referring to a significant ruling by the Apex Court in the case of “Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. LG Electronics India Private Limited” (Order dated 20.07.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 6850 of 2018), shed light on a crucial legal aspect. The Apex Court clarified that administrative circulars, such as those issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), should not be considered as a restraint on the Commissioner, who functions in a quasi-judicial capacity.
In the aforementioned decision, it was emphasized that the administrative circulars would not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since they serve as a quasi-judicial authority. This implies that the Commissioner holds the discretion to assess each case individually and make decisions based on its specific circumstances.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
