Wp(C)/16654/2020 Of Anna Aluminium Company (P) Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.16654 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: M/S.ANNA ALUMINIUM COMPANY (P) LIMITED.,KP 111 847, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM 683562, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. BOBY M. JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCORPORATE CIRCLE, 1(1), 4TH FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018CORPORATE CIRCLE, 1(1), 4TH FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, G-51 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, G-51 PARAPILLY LANE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, GIRINAGAR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036 JOSE JOSEPH S.C FOR I.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON13.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.16654 OF 2020 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order onvarious grounds, but primarily that noopportunity of being heard had been offeredto them before the same had been issued. 2.Shri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, admitted thatExt.P5 has been issued without offeringopportunity of being heard to the petitioner;and therefore, submitted that if this Courtis so inclined, the 2[nd] respondent willreconsider the matter, after such opportunityis given to them. 3.When I go through Ext.P5, it is clearthat the said order has been issued withoutproper application of mind, because what isstated therein is that a stay has beengranted on condition of payment of 'disputeddemand till the decision of the appeal'.Obviously, therefore, this is an eminentlyfit case where this Court also feels that WP(C).No.16654 OF 2020 3 Ext.P5 order should be vacated and theAuthority be directed to reconsider the staypetition in terms of law. In the afore circumstances, I allow thiswrit petition and set aside Ext.P5, withoutentering into the merits of the contentionsof the parties and leaving all of them open;with a consequential direction to the 2[nd]respondent to take up the application forstay preferred by the petitioner and issueorders thereon, after affording them anopportunity of being heard, as expeditiouslyas is possible. Needless to say, until such time as theapplication for stay is considered by the 2[nd]respondent, all further action to recoveramounts as per the demand will standdeferred. It is further clarified, at the request ofthe learned Standing Counsel for therespondents, that the hearing offered to the WP(C).No.16654 OF 2020 4 petitioner can either be physical or throughvideo conferencing, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. This writ petition is thus ordered. MC/19.8.2020 Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 23-12-2019 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23-12-2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14-01-2020 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17-02-2020 EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04-08-2020 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE