Wp(C)/15429/2012 Of Thomas Nadackal Paul v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Iv, Kottayam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2012/13TH ASHADHA 1934 WP(C).No. 15429 of 2012 (C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMAS NADACKAL PAUL, N T P CORPORATION, N T P BUILDINGS, CENTRAL JUNCTION, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 631. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM-686 001.WARD-4, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, RANGE KOTTAYAM- 686 001.PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, RANGE KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV,KERA BHAVAN, COCHIN-682 016.KERA BHAVAN, COCHIN-682 016. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PALA ROAD,ETTUMANOOR-686 631. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER,FEDERAL BANK, PALA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR-686 631. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C, R4 BY SRI. K.S. DILIP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.15429/2012-C: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1.TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A Y 2009-10.UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A Y 2009-10. EXHIBIT-P2.TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT.THE ACT. EXHIBIT-P3.TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE A Y 2009-10.PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE A Y 2009-10. EXHIBIT-P4.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE 26.6.2012 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 226(3) TOTHE BANK.THE BANK. EXHIBIT-P5.TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.6.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6.TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.15429 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th] day of July, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the coercive stepsbeing taken by the respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the liability tobe satisfied by the petitioner, without any regard to the pendencyof the appeal before the 3rd respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the assessment was finalized in respect of the assessment year 2009-2010 by thesecond respondent as borne by Ext.P1 dated 30.12.2011 anddemand notice was followed as borne by Ext.P2. The petitionerpreferred Ext.P3 appeal as early as in January, 2012. But in spiteof the specific contentions raised by the petitioner, the concernedauthority has not granted any interim stay; particularly inexercise of the power under Section 220(6) of the Income TaxAct, which made the petitioner to approach this Court, more so,when the respondents have given adverse instructions to thebankers of the petitioner, i.e., respondents 4 and 5, whereby thebank accounts of the petitioner came to be freezed, which in turnis also sought to be intercepted in this writ petition. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Income Tax Department submits that, despite the W.P.C. No. 15429 of 2012 -2- 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Income Tax Department submits that, despite the W.P.C. No. 15429 of 2012 -2- filing of appeal in January 2012, there is no case for thepetitioner that the petitioner had filed a proper petition for stayeither before the appellate authority or a petition under Section220(6) before the assessing authority, seeking for any relief.This being the position, it is not correct and proper for thepetitioner to contend that it was for the concerned authority tohave granted relief automatically. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court leaves it open tothe petitioner either to file a petition under Section 220(6) beforethe first respondent or to file an I.A. for stay before the 3rdrespondent/appellate authority. If any such petition is filed bythe petitioner, before the concerned respondent, the same shallbe considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within 'oneweek' of filing the petition. Status quo shall be maintained withregard to Ext.P6 for a period of two weeks. The writ petition is disposed of. Kp/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. JUDGE.