2019 (11) TMI 151 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings - stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeals by the Appellate Tribunal, it would appear that the Appellate Tribunal subsequently considered the appeals and dismissed the same - in the recovery proceedings that were initiated by the respondents when the appeals were dismissed, the recoveries effected were appropriated towards the tax liability confirmed on the petitioner for the year 2016-17 - HELD THAT - Inasmuch as there has been an interim order in force against recovery proceedings in these Writ Petitions and now the Appellate Tribunal has already heard the appeals covered and is pending adjudication before the First Appellate Authority, these writ petitions can be disposed by directing the Appellate Authority concerned to pass orders in the pending proceedings before them. I, therefore, direct the Appellate Tribunal/CIT(Appeals) to pass final orders in the appeals/miscellaneous applications pending before them expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revenue recovery action during pending appeals before appellate authorities.
2. Appropriation of recoveries towards tax liability confirmed for a specific year.
3. Review petitions filed before the Tribunal after dismissal of appeals.
4. Disposal of writ petitions directing the Appellate Authority to pass final orders expeditiously.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Kerala High Court involved multiple writ petitions concerning the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation against revenue recovery actions initiated by the Income Tax Department while their appeals were pending before appellate authorities. The petitioner's grievances stemmed from recoveries being appropriated towards a tax liability confirmed for the year 2016-17, despite interim orders against recovery proceedings. The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal had already heard some appeals and directed the Appellate Authority to pass final orders in the pending proceedings promptly. The stay against recovery proceedings granted by the Court was to continue until the Appellate Authorities passed and communicated their orders to the petitioner.

The petitioner, represented by learned counsel, had approached the Court due to the revenue recovery actions taken by the respondents during the pendency of their appeals. The Court acknowledged that the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed some appeals but allowed review petitions filed by the petitioner, resulting in the Tribunal reconsidering the appeals on the points raised. The judgment emphasized the importance of expeditiously resolving the pending appeals and miscellaneous applications before the Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after giving the petitioner a hearing.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of revenue recovery actions during pending appeals, appropriation of recoveries towards specific tax liabilities, filing of review petitions, and the need for the Appellate Authorities to pass final orders promptly. The Court's directive aimed to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the pending matters while maintaining the stay against recovery proceedings until the Appellate Authorities communicated their decisions to the petitioner.