KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/4277/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd., the petitioner, who contested an order of assessment revised by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the first respondent, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had self-assessed for the year 2015-16, which was contested leading to an appeal (Ext.P4) and a stay application (Ext.P5). The first respondent's order (Ext.P7) required the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax, following directives from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner challenged this order in the writ petition, seeking appropriate directions regarding the stay application and the payment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755357 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; R SREEJITH; P PAUL; MEKHALA BENNY; ASISH MOHAN; G KRISHNAKUMAR; MARY JOSSY; ACHYUT PADMARAJ
• Keywords: Disputed tax; Income Tax; Revised Assessment; Self-assessment; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3); 142; 220(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4277 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD. SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, P.B.NO.2263, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR (MALLYA) SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ RESPONDENT(S): 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4277 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOICE UNDER S. 142 DATED 13.11.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER S. 220(6) FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PS TO JUDGE. Kvs/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P .(C).No.4277 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent under the Income T ax Act (the Act). The self assessment made by the petitioner for the year 2015-'16 has been revised by the first respondent in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act. Ext.P3 is the order of assessment. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P5 is the application preferred by the petitioner for stay in Ext.P4 appeal. It is seen that pending disposal of Ext.P4 appeal, the petitioner approached the assessing authority invoking Section 220(6) of the Act, and the assessing authority passed Ext.P7 order directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed tax in the light of the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct T axes. The grievance of the petitioner concerns Ext.P7 order. According to the petitioner, on the facts of the present case, such an order is not justified. The petitioner, WPC.No.4277 of 2018 2 therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P4 appeal, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until a decision is taken on Ext.P5 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P3 order shall be deferred. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- ( true copy ) "