Wa/1872/2023 Of Shameem Thari v. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 31 DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WA NO. 1872 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2023 IN WP(C) 34385/2023 OFHIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER: SHAMEEM THARIAGED 41 YEARSS/O ABDUL KAREEM THARI, THARI HOUSE CHENDAPURAYA, ABDU RAHIMAN NAGAR P O, ABDU RAHIMAN NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 676305 BY ADVS.M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMEDAKHIL PHILIP MANITHOTTIYILDANIYA RASHEED PALLIYALILNAEEM M.MMUHAMMED FIRDOUZ A.V. RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODEAAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN – 673001 2THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, C-BLOCK,4TH FLOOR, S.P.M. CIVIC CENTER, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No.34385 of 2023 is the appellant hereinaggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2023 in the Writ Petition. Thebrief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 series of assessmentorders before this Court in the Writ Petition when confronted withrecovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him bythe assessment orders. It was the case of the appellant that againstExt.P1 series of assessment orders he has preferred Ext.P2 series ofappeals and Ext.P3 series of stay petitions for the assessment years2018-2019 to 2021-2022 under the Income Tax Act. The apprehensionof the appellant was that even before consideration of the stay petitionsthere would be recovery steps initiated by the respondents for recoveryof the amounts confirmed against the appellant by Ext.P1 series ofassessment orders. 3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter directedthe respondents to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions if itwas not possible to finally hear the appeals expeditiously. The learnedSingle Judge, however, did not grant a stay of recovery proceedingspending disposal of the stay petitions by the respondents. It is for thislimited relief that the appellant is before us through the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri.M.P.Shameem Ahamed, the learned counselfor the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel forthe Income Tax Department. 5. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated theappellant to the alternate remedy before the statutory authority it wasincumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant fromrecovery proceedings pending disposal of the petitions by therespondent appellate authority. Accordingly, we modify the impugnedjudgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifyingthat pending disposal of the stay petitions or appeals whichever isearlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against theappellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P1series of assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. Save for thislimited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned W.A.No.1872 of 2023 judgment are not interfered with. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns