THE MANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9202/2019HC KeralaKLHC01023249201926 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent (ITAT) to consider and dispose of Ext.P4, the stay petition, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered a stay on recovery proceedings pursuant to the order under appeal before the ITAT, pending its decision on the stay petition. The reasoning was based on the circumstances of the case, implying a need for prompt action. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the tax dispute itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application before the Tribunal. No specific ratio decidendi for future cases on tax law is established, as it is a procedural direction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction to the third respondent, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, to expeditiously consider and dispose of Ext.P4, a stay petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (Ward 2, Palakkad) and the subsequent order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The specific assessment years and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that a stay petition (Ext.P4) was filed before the ITAT, which was pending consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued for an expeditious disposal of their stay petition before the ITAT, citing the need for timely relief. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, was present and heard. No specific arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the stay petition or the delay in its disposal were recorded. The core issue is the procedural direction sought by the petitioner for the ITAT to act on their pending application.

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 S.V.BHATTI TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 9202 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: THE MANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F-1582, MANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD- 678642, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SUNDARESWARAN P.V., AGED 57, S/O.ACHUTHA VARIER. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD- 678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 3RD FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR- 680001. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN- 682037. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 9202/2019 -2-

J U D G M E N T Heard Smt.Krishna K., the petitioner's counsel and Sri Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel.

2.

The petitioner prays for a direction to the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 stay petition expeditiously.

3.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime the recovery proceedings pursuant to the order under appeal before the third respondent is stayed. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE jjj

W.P.(C) No. 9202/2019 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 15.03.2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 02.01.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 23.03.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 23.03.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →