Case Law Details
Manath Muhammed Ismail Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The Kerala High Court, in the case of Manath Muhammed Ismail Vs ACIT, issued a crucial directive regarding recovery proceedings. The appellant, aggrieved by assessment orders, sought relief from potential recovery actions before the appeal’s conclusion.
Detailed Analysis: The appellant challenged Exts.P1 to P4 assessment orders, citing pending appeals (Exts.P5 to P8) and stay petitions (Exts.P9 to P12) for the years 2015-2016 to 2018-2019 under the Income Tax Act. Concerns arose over recovery actions preceding the stay petitions’ consideration, prompting the Writ Petition.
The learned Single Judge directed the authorities to address stay petitions promptly but did not stay recovery proceedings. The appellant appealed, emphasizing the need for protection during the pendency of the stay petitions or appeals.
In its analysis, the Kerala High Court acknowledged the alternate remedy provided by the statutory authority and modified the judgment. The court clarified that during the stay petitions’ pendency or until the appeal’s disposal, recovery proceedings against the appellant would be temporarily suspended.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision in Manath Muhammed Ismail Vs ACIT strikes a balance, upholding the statutory remedy while ensuring protection for the appellant. The modification in recovery proceedings provides a nuanced approach, highlighting the court’s commitment to fairness in tax dispute resolution.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner in WP(C).No.1075 of 2024 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2024 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:
2. The appellant had impugned Exts.P1 to P4 assessment orders before this Court in the Writ Petition when confronted with recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by the assessment orders. It was the case of the appellant that against P1 to P4 assessment orders he has preferred Exts.P5 to P8 appeals and Exts.P9 to P12 stay petitions for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2018-2019 under the Income Tax Act. The apprehension of the appellant was that even before consideration of the stay petitions there would be recovery steps initiated by the respondents for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by Exts.P1 to P4 assessment orders.
3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions if it was not possible to finally hear the appeals expeditiously. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant a stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the stay petitions by the respondents. It is for this limited relief that the appellant is before us through the present appeal.
4. We have heard Sri. Anil D. Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department.
5. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternate remedy before the statutory authority it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the petitions by the respondent appellate authority. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of the stay petitions or appeals whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Exts.P1 to P4 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with.
Author Bio
