Case Law Details
Prathibha Traders Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The Kerala High Court, in the case of Prathibha Traders vs. ACIT, has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction alongside the appellate authority. The petitioner sought relief for the prompt resolution of their appeal and stay application, expressing concerns about ongoing recovery proceedings.
Detailed Analysis: The assessment proceedings for the petitioner’s income in the fiscal year 2017-18 were concluded with an order dated March 26, 2022, assessing a total income of Rs. 34,14,093. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner’s contention is that, despite filing the appeal on time (April 6, 2023), no decision has been made, leading to ongoing recovery actions.
The court’s response emphasizes a preference for the proper appellate process over parallel intervention through writ jurisdiction. Acknowledging the appellate authority’s involvement, the court directs the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal within two months. If a final decision is not possible within this timeframe, the stay application should be decided within the same period.
Conclusion: The court’s decision to refrain from parallel writ jurisdiction underscores the importance of following due appellate procedures. The directive to expedite the appeal and stay application aims to address the petitioner’s concerns regarding ongoing recovery proceedings. This judgment reaffirms the court’s commitment to a time-bound resolution within the framework of the law, promoting a fair and efficient appellate process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs;
(i) To direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, and Ext.P3 stay petition by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.
(ii) To grant the petitioner such other identical reliefs including the costs of these proceedings;
2. The assessment proceedings got completed in respect of the income of the petitioner for the assessment years 2017-18 vide the Exhibit P-1 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 Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the said income, demand notice has been issued and penalty proceedings has been directed to be initiated. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner has filed an appeal in Exhibit P-2 along with stay petition in Exhibit P-3 before the 2nd respondent.
3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the appeal has been filed on time, i.e. on 06.04.2023 but, 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 Exhibit P-1 order. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent to be 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.
4. I have considered the submissions. When the appellate authority seized of the matter, this Court would not like to exercise its writ jurisdiction parallelly. It would be suffice to direct the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal pending before it in accordance with the law within a period of two months, and if it is not possible to decide the appeal finally within two months, the stay application be decided within a period of two months from today in accordance with the law.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
