KANAYANNUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/18315/2019HC KeralaKLHC01046927201905 July 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the third respondent (appellate authority) to dispose of the stay petitions. The court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petitions as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The ratio is that procedural delays in deciding stay petitions can be addressed by the High Court through writ jurisdiction to prevent the rendering of statutory appeals ineffective.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kanayannur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, filed appeals against assessment orders under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Along with these appeals, the petitioner filed stay petitions. The petitioner contended that the mere filing of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay, and the delay in disposing of the stay petitions was leading to recovery steps by the assessing officer, potentially rendering the statutory appeals ineffective. The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petitions. The High Court perused the relevant documents and found a prima facie case for issuing directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petitions filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) The petitioner argued that the delay in disposing of stay petitions was causing prejudice by allowing recovery proceedings to commence, which could render the appeals infructuous. They relied on the principle that statutory appeals should not be rendered ineffective due to procedural delays. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 25(1)

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 FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.18315 OF 2019(L) PETITIONERS: KANAYANNUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED NO.E 326, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY SHERLY KURIAKOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, PALARIVATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI 682 025 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH SMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), NON CORPORATE, C.R BLDG, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), NON CORPORATE, C.R BLDG, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS, C.R BLDG, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018 OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI JOS WINSON FOR SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.18315/2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed appeals in Exts.P3, P7 and P11 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Exts.P1, P5 & P9 made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeals with Exts.P4, P8 & P12 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P4, P8 and P12 stay petitions expeditiously.

The case of petitioner is that the 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 Exts.P4, P8 & P12 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Exts.P3, P7 & P11. 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 orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

Perused Exts.P1, P3, P4, P5, P7, P8, P9, P11 and P12. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to third respondent to dispose of the stay petitions in Exts.P4, P8 & P12 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 judgment: (a) The appellate authority/third respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P4, P8 & P12 stay petitions 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 ten weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Ac

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 11-01-2017 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 12-01-2017 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 24-01-2018 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 21-02-2018 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 26-01-2019 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 05-02-2019 BEFORE THE 3RD RSPONDENT EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01-02-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →