NAVAIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WP(C)/5682/2019HC KeralaKLHC01014817201925 February 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had exercised its statutory remedy by filing appeals and stay petitions on time. The Court found that procedural fairness necessitates that the revenue authorities should await the decision of the appellate authority on the stay petitions before taking further steps. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to defer coercive steps until the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (4th respondent) considers the stay petitions. The Court also expressed hope for an expeditious disposal of the stay petitions by the Tribunal. As a result of this arrangement, Exts.P14 and P15 (presumably related to the coercive steps or demand) were suspended.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Navaikulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner challenged assessment orders (Exts.P2 and P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1 (3rd respondent), who rejected the appeals. Subsequently, the petitioner filed second appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (4th respondent) and also filed stay petitions. The petitioner filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, alleging that tax authorities were taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (4th respondent) should consider the stay petitions filed by the petitioner before any coercive steps are taken by the revenue authorities? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps were being taken by the revenue authorities while their stay petitions were pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. They sought a direction to defer these coercive steps until the Tribunal decided on the stay petitions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the stay petitions or the coercive steps. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents appeared before the court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH IS PRESS ROD, KACHERIPADY,

DATED 29.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 AOF ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER U/S 250 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 22.1.2019. EXHIBIT P9 AOF ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER U/S 250 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 21.1.2019. -5- W.P.(C). No. 5682 of 2019 EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014- 15 DATED 20.2.2019 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE STY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 20.02.2019 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2015- 6 DATED 20.2.2019 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 AOF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 20.2.2019 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 AOF THE NOTICE U/S 226 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2019. EXHIBIT P15 AOF THE NOTICE U/S 226 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2019. EXHIBIT P16 AOF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN SIMILAR CASE IN WPC NO. 40553/18 DATED 4.1.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →