STATE FAMING CORPORATION OF KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6441/2007HC KeralaKLHC01045111200708 December 2014Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The petitioner, State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed against it under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had preferred an appeal and a stay petition before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). While the ITAT was seized of the stay petition but had not yet considered it, recovery steps were initiated against the petitioner. The High Court, by an order dated February 27, 2007, directed the petitioner to move its stay petition before the ITAT and thereafter, if necessary, move the writ petition. No further steps were taken by the petitioner after this order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed at a stage when the assessee had already preferred an appeal and a stay petition before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner approached the High Court while the stay petition was pending before the Tribunal and had not been considered, and recovery steps were initiated. The Court had previously directed the petitioner on February 27, 2007, to move the stay petition before the Appellate Tribunal and then, if necessary, move the writ petition. Since no further steps were taken by the petitioner after this direction, the writ petition was dismissed. The principle derived is that a writ petition will not be entertained when statutory remedies are available and have been directed to be pursued, especially when no further action has been taken by the petitioner to pursue those remedies.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and recovery steps are being initiated against the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee approached the High Court because recovery steps were being initiated while its stay petition was pending before the ITAT, and the ITAT had not yet considered the stay petition. The assessee sought intervention from the High Court at this stage. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the High Court's subsequent direction implies that the primary recourse should be through the appellate mechanism provided under the Income Tax Act.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6441 of 2007 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., FARM HOUSE, VETTITHITTA P.O., ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND SRI.S.SREEDUTT SRI.M.M.RAJEEVAN SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I, KOLLAM.

2.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts

WP(C).NO.6441/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/3/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 22/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/8/

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →