M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/17122/2013

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. US Technology International (P) Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the Union of India and its tax authorities concerning a re-assessment order and subsequent demand for tax payment. The petitioner had initially filed an appeal against the re-assessment order and a stay application to halt the recovery process pending the appeal's decision. The writ petition was filed due to the inaction on the stay application, which led to the continuation of recovery steps by the tax authorities. The court's decision focused on ensuring a timely resolution of the stay application to prevent undue financial burden on the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722432 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: A K JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
• Keywords: Coercive Recovery; Income Tax; Re-assessment; Stay Petition
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013/17TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 17122 of 2013 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- M/S. US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD., 721, NILA, TECHNOPARK, KARYAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ALEXANDER VARGHESE. BY SRI.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.SANDEEP GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMERNT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 17122 of 2013 (M) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31/03/2013. EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/04/2013. EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 28/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/07/2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 17122 OF 2013 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY, 2013 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by an order of re-assessment issued under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2. When the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 notice demanding payment and threatening recovery, the petitioner had moved Ext.P4 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. From the endorsement contained in Ext.P4 it is evident that the stay petition was received at the office of the 2nd respondent on 05-07-2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stay petition is not yet posted for consideration. In the meanwhile, coercive steps of recovery is being pursued. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard; Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as standing counsel appearing for Government of India (Taxes). Considering pendency of the W.P.(c) No.17122/2013 -2- interim application for stay before the statutory authority, I am of the view that a direction for speedy disposal of the said petition will suffice to meet the ends of justice. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the Department, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time the stay petition is considered and disposed of by the 2nd respondent, coercive steps of recovery if any initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge "