M/S.GASHA STEELS PVT.LTD. V. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KZD

WA/1755/2011

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Gasha Steels Pvt. Ltd., represented by its managing director, K. Abdul Gafoor, who appealed against the conditional stay orders issued by the Assessing Officer concerning tax payments for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The assessments were based on data from a Central Excise inspection, which revealed unaccounted production and sales, subsequently assessed for excise duty. The appellant argued that related excise duty appeals were pending before the CEGAT, expecting a favorable outcome that would impact the income tax appeals. The respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), opposed the appeal, noting that only 25% of the total tax demand was not stayed by the Assessing Officer. The court's decision aimed to balance the financial burden on the appellant while ensuring the tax authorities could recover dues if the appellant defaulted on the installment payments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755978 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Central Excise Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: K SRIKUMAR; K CHANDRAN; P R AJITHKUMAR
• Keywords: Appellate Authority; CEGAT; Conditional stay orders; Excise Duty; Unaccounted production and sale; Income tax assessments
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1755 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27850/2011 Dated 24/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN W.P.C --------------------------------- M/S GASHA STEELS PVT.LTD,23/2087, PANNIYANKARA,CALICUT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,K.ABDUL GAFOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 1(1),KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. MR.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.1755 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant challenged conditional stay orders issued by the Assessing Officer withholding recovery on part payment of tax during the pendency of the first appeals before the appellate authority. The income tax assessments involved are for the years 2005-06 & 2006-07. The assessments are based on data gathered by the Central Excise during inspection of the factory. Admittedly, substantial portion of unaccounted production and sale got assessed for the purpose of excise duty and the same is partly confirmed in first appeals. The appellant's case is that second appeals against the central excise demands are pending before the CEGAT and the appellant is expecting relief from CEGAT and consequently W.A.No.1755/2011 2 in the income tax appeals as well. Even though the appellant has a case that the income tax appeals are heard, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the appellate authority's office is vacant and only urgent matters are heard by another person on additional charge. Learned Standing Counsel also opposed the Writ Appeal on the ground that demand raised by the Assessing Officer during pendency of the appeals is only 25% of the total demand and balance 75% of the demand is virtually stayed by him. 3. After hearing both sides, we feel in view of the total payments made by the appellant and the balance demand and the nature of contentions, the conditional stay orders issued by the Assessing Officer could be modified by reducing the amount and by extending the stay till disposal of the appeals. We, accordingly, dispose of the Writ Appeal by modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge and that of the Assessing Officer by reducing the payment to Rs.40 lakhs which will be paid in four equal monthly installments, first of W.A.No.1755/2011 3 which will be paid on or before 15/12/2011 and the balance on or before 15th of the 3 succeeding months. Recovery proceedings will remain stayed till disposal of the appeals by the CIT (Appeals) on condition of payment as above. In case there is default in payment of any of the installments, stay granted by the Assessing Officer and modified by us will stand vacated, and the respondents will be free to recover full arrears. We feel the appellate authority should show priority for hearing in matters of high demand and should dispose of the appeals without any delay. There will be a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg "