M/S.BAKERS TRADERS V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/26528/2011

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Bakers Traders, represented by its partner Jessy Kunjachan, who filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Ernakulam, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Ernakulam, along with the manager of South Indian Bank, Ernakulam. The petitioner challenged the initiation of coercive recovery proceedings by the assessing authority during the pendency of stay petitions related to disputed assessment orders for the years 2003-04 to 2009-10. The court found it unjust to proceed with coercive recovery before the appellate authority could consider the stay petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758908 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C K GOVINDAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S K DEVI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Coercive Recovery; Income Tax; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26528 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.BAKERS TRADERS, PADMA JUNCTION,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER JESSY KUNJACHAN. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, ERNAKULAM 682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I SANJUAN TOWERS,ERNAKULAM 682 018. 3. THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, ELIAS CHAMBERS,BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 018. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MM WP(C).No. 26528 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 EXT.P1A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05. EXT.P1B TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 EXT.P1C TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 EXT.P1D TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 EXT.P1E TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 EXT.P1F TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P2A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P2B TRUE COPY OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P2C TRUE COPY OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P2D TRUE COPY OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P2E TRUE COPY OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P2F TRUE COPY OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P3A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P3B TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P3C TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P3D TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P3E TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P3F TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28-1-2011 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-09-2011 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-09-2011 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-09-2011 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-09-2011 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-09-2011 WP(C).No. 26528 of 2011(M) --2-- EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-09-2011 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-09-2011 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-09-2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE MM S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 26528 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Against Exts.P1 to P1f assessment orders, the petitioner has filed Exts.P2 to P2f appeals along with Exts.P3 to P3f stay petitions. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petitions, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel also. 3. I am satisfied that before the appellate authority could consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 to P3f stay petitions, it is unjust to initiate coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the amounts disputed. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 to P3f stay petitions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Exts.P3 to P3f, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the disputed amounts in Exts.P2 to P2f shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2 "