THE ANDOORKONAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BNK LTD. NO. 3127 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
RP/487/2019HC KeralaKLHC01038637201918 June 2019Author: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the omission of the direction regarding no coercive action was indeed an inadvertent error. The Court found that this direction was intended to be part of the judgment disposing of the writ petition. Therefore, the Review Petition was allowed to correct this clerical mistake. The Court ordered that the following direction shall be added to the judgment dated 24.04.2019: “The respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner pending disposal of Ext.P6 stay petition.” No other issues were decided, and the substantive merits of the original writ petition were not revisited.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Andoorkonam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court, in its judgment dated April 24, 2019, in WP(C) No. 12501/2019, had ordered that the respondents (Income Tax Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) shall not proceed with any coercive action against the petitioner. However, this specific direction was omitted from the typed judgment due to an inadvertent error. The petitioner filed a Review Petition (RP.No.487 of 2019) seeking to correct this omission. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment year(s) are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the omission of the direction "The respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner pending disposal of Ext.P6 stay petition" from the judgment dated 24.04.2019 in WP(C) No. 12501/2019 was an inadvertent error requiring review? (Question of fact and procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the omission of the coercive action clause was an inadvertent error and sought its inclusion in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue in the review petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

RP.No.487 of 2019
WP(C). 12501/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1941 RP.No.487 of 2019 IN WP(C). 12501/2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12501/2019 DATED 24.04.2019 OF HIGHCOURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C): THE ANDOORKONAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BNK LTD. NO. 3127, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KEEZHAVOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 584. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C): 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, 1ST FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM ,SC,INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No.487 of 2019 2

O R D E R While disposing of the writ petition, though it was ordered that the respondents shall not proceed with any coercive action, it is not seen typed in the judgment. I find that it was only inadvertent error that such a direction happened to be omitted.

Therefore the Revision Petition is allowed. In the judgment dated 24.04.2019, the following direction shall be added. “The respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner pending disposal of Ext.P6 stay petition.” P.V.ASHA WW JUDGE

RP.No.487 of 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I AOF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE II AOF THE REPLY DATED 14.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →