NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/15767/2019HC KeralaKLHC01040182201910 June 2019Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal preferred by the petitioner institution is liable to be considered and disposed of on merits before proceeding with the recovery of amounts in terms of the orders passed by the assessment authority. Consequently, the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1) was directed to consider and pass orders either on the appeal (Exhibit P3) or a reasoned order on the stay application (Exhibit P6) after hearing the petitioner and considering the legal contentions raised. Until such orders are passed, the demand raised against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was ordered accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Nadakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a co-operative society that received an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal (Exhibit P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 (2nd respondent) and also a stay petition (Exhibit P6) in connection with the appeal. Despite the pending appeal and stay petition, demands were being raised based on the assessment orders. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of their appeal and stay petition before any coercive recovery proceedings are initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate authority (2nd respondent) should consider and dispose of the statutory appeal (Exhibit P3) and the stay petition (Exhibit P6) preferred by the petitioner before any coercive recovery proceedings are initiated based on the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that demands were being raised in terms of the assessment orders despite the pendency of their statutory appeal and stay petition. They sought a direction for the disposal of these pending matters before any recovery action. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the judgment.

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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No. 15767 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: M/S NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O, KOLLAM-691 578, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SMT.SWATHY S. SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, KOLLAM, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOLLAM-691 001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM-695 003 OTHER PRESENT: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15767 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Co-operative Society which has been issued with assessment order under the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal, Exhibit P3, before the 2nd respondent appellate authority under the Income Tax Act. He has also preferred Exhibit P6 stay petition in the appeal. However, it is contended that demands are being raised in terms of the assessment orders.

2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the petitioner institution is liable to be considered and disposed of on merits before proceeding with the recovery of amounts in terms of the orders passed by the assessment authority. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P3 appeal is to be considered and reasoned order is to be passed at least on the application preferred by the petitioner for stay before any further coercive proceedings are taken against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and WP(C).No. 15767 of 2019 3 pass orders either on Ext.P3 appeal or a reasoned order on the application preferred by the petitioner for stay after hearing the petitioner and after considering the legal contentions raised. Till orders are passed as directed above, the demand raised against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE rmm

WP(C).No. 15767 of 2019 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2015-16 DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,16,40,620/- U/S. 156 DATED 28.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2019 FILED FOR AY 2015-16 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 8133/2019 DATED 18.03.2019. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 25262/2016 DATED 07.04.2017. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 21.03.2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.05.2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // PA. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →