THE KECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19280/2019HC KeralaKLHC01049263201916 July 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, perusing the relevant documents (Exts.P1, P2, and P3), was prima facie satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions. The Court found that the limited prayer and grounds presented warranted intervention. Accordingly, the Court directed the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P3) as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for a period of two months from the date of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kechery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed a stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. The petitioner argued that mere pendency of an appeal does not grant a stay, and delay in deciding the stay petition could lead to recovery proceedings by the assessing officer, rendering the appeal ineffective. The petitioner contended that the law mandates expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the assessee. The assessee contended that the mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not constitute a stay. They argued that delay in disposing of the stay petition could result in coercive recovery actions by the assessing officer, making the statutory appeal either academic or ineffective. The assessee emphasized the legal provision for timely disposal of stay petitions to safeguard the appellant's interests pending appeal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

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 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.19280 of 2019 PETITIONER: THE KECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.R286, KECHERY P.O., THRISSUR 680 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DAVIS P.A, AGED 44, S/O. P.D. ANTHONY. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I AND TPS, IIND FLOOR, CITY PLAZA, WEST NADA, GURUVAYUR 680 101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 021. SRI JOSE JOSEPH - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19280 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act 1961. The petitioner has filed the appeal with a stay petition in Ext.P3. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 expeditiously.

2.

The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P3 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the order on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

3.

Perused Exts.P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Ext.P3 respectively. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The appellate authority/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 application as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for two months from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE PV

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 21.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 22.12.2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 22.12.2018 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL \\TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE PV

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →