ALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.R 321, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/23913/2023HC KeralaKLHC01052371202321 July 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent (ITAT) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P5) expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if the ITAT proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, it must provide reasons for the same. Furthermore, until an order is passed on the stay petition, all recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and demand notice (Ext P2) were deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to expeditiously consider and dispose of its appeal and stay petition. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer. An appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the ITAT on July 11, 2023, along with a stay petition filed on July 18, 2023. The petitioner apprehended recovery proceedings based on the assessment order and demand notice during the pendency of these applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the third respondent (ITAT) should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext P5) expeditiously? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they have filed an appeal and a stay petition before the ITAT and are apprehensive of recovery proceedings being initiated before the stay petition is decided. Therefore, the ITAT should be directed to dispose of the stay petition promptly. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but no specific arguments were noted regarding the disposal of the stay petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 23913 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.R 321, SANTHIPURAM P.O. KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 680668 BY ADVS. C.A.JOJO SWATHY S. RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN WARD-2(1) THRISSUR P.O, KERALA, PIN – 680001 2 INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI., PIN – 110001 3 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I & C II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD., PIN – 682037 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.23913/2023 -:2:- Dated this the 21st day of July,2023

J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to direct the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext P4 appeal and Ext P5 stay petition, expeditiously.

2.

The petitioner’s case is that, aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the second respondent. But, the appeal was dismissed by Ext P3 order by the second respondent. Now, the petitioner had preferred Ext P4 appeal before the third respondent on 11.07.2023. Along with the Ext P4 second appeal, the petitioner has preferred Ext P5 stay petition on 18.07.2023. The petitioner is apprehensive that, during the pendency of Exts P4 & P5, the respondents may enforce Ext P1 assessment order through Ext P2 demand notice. Hence, the writ petition.

3.

Heard; Sri. C.A.Jojo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext P5 stay petition is pending consideration before the third respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) The third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext P5 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention that, if the third respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext P5 stay petition, all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts P1 & P2 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/21.07.23 //// P.A.To Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.12.2016 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2017 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.06.2023 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.07.2023 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.07.2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →