Case Law Details
Ajas N Shamsu Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Ajas N Shamsu, concerning pending income tax appeals and related issues. The petitioner sought the expedited disposal of appeals, the quashing of property attachments, and a stay on garnishee proceedings. The court, after hearing arguments from all parties involved, focused on the compliance with its interim order and the necessity for swift resolution of the pending appeals.
The court noted that it had previously issued an interim order staying the garnishee proceedings initiated by the income tax department, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and depositing 20% of the disputed amount. The petitioner complied with the bank guarantee requirement, and the deadline for the 20% deposit extended to March 15, 2025. Given this compliance, the court deemed the primary grievance of the petitioner regarding the garnishee proceedings to be substantially addressed.
The court then directed the second respondent, the relevant income tax authority, to take immediate steps to dispose of the pending appeals (Ext.P8 to Ext.P14) in an expeditious manner. The court emphasized the need for the appeals to be resolved without undue delay, and instructed the petitioner to cooperate fully in the disposal process. It also clarified that if the petitioner failed to make the 20% deposit by the stipulated deadline, the income tax authority would be at liberty to initiate legal proceedings.
The court did not specifically address the quashing of property attachments under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, which deals with provisional attachments to protect revenue. However, the order’s emphasis on the expedited disposal of appeals indirectly addresses the underlying issues that led to the attachments. The court’s order essentially ensures that the matter is resolved quickly, which in turn should lead to either a confirmation or release of the attachments. This case highlights the importance of timely resolution of tax disputes, and the courts willingness to provide interim relief to ensure the protection of the taxpayer’s rights, while balancing the revenue’s interest. While specific judicial precedents were not explicitly cited in the provided text, the actions of the court are in line with principles of natural justice and the need to avoid undue hardship to taxpayers.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioner seeks for the following reliefs :-
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to dispose of Exhibit P8 to P14 Appeals and Exhibit P15 to 21 stay petitions as expeditiously as possible.
ii. To call for the records leading to the continuance of attachments of the properties and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari in terms of the sunset clauses in section 281B of the Income Tax Act.
iii. During the pendency of the Writ petition the Hon’ble court be pleased to grant stay of operation of Exhibit P22, 23 and 24 notices.
2. i have heard Sri. Anil D. Nair, the learned Senior Counsel apart from Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and 7, Sri. P. Paulochan Antony, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Sri.Shahier Singh M., the learned counsel for the fifth respondent and Sri. G. Hariharan, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
3. By an order dated 30.01.2025, this Court had stayed the garnishee proceedings initiated as per Ext.P22 to Ext.P24 for a period of six weeks subject to certain conditions. Other directions were also issued, including a direction permitting the petitioner to operate the Bank accounts that were frozen. It was, however, clarified that, if in case petitioner failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee within the time limit prescribed in that order, the garnishee proceedings shall stand revived.
4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the conditions in the order dated 30.01.2025, have been complied with to the extent of furnishing bank guarantee and that the time limit for depositing 20% for obtaining stay is available till 15.03.2025.
5. Since the petitioner has already complied with the conditions imposed in the order dated 30.01.2025, I am of the view that the grievance projected in this writ petition has substantially been redressed and that nothing further remains to be considered for grant of relief.
6. Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that the second respondent shall initiate appropriate steps to dispose of Ext.P8 to Ext.P14 appeals without undue delay in an expeditious manner. Petitioner shall also cooperate in the disposal of the said appeal. It is, however, clarified that, if in case the petitioner fails to deposit 20% as stipulated by this Court in the order dated 30.01.2025, the competent authority will be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Author Bio
