THE THACHAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/13364/2019HC KeralaKLHC01033257201910 May 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 Court directed the second respondent, the appellate authority, to take up, consider, and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Exhibit P2) at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until the appeal is disposed of, coercive proceedings based on the original assessment order are to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of appeal disposal before recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Thachampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a primary credit society that received an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal (Exhibit P2) and a stay petition (Exhibit P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. Despite the pending appeal, demands were being raised based on the assessment order. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal before recovery proceedings are initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before 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 the appeal before any recovery action. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the presence of the Standing Counsel suggests they were represented and likely defended the assessment order and the recovery process.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P.(C).No.13364/19 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 20TH VAISAKHA, 1941 WP(C).No. 13364 of 2019 PETITIONER: THE THACHAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3150, MAIN ROAD, THACHAMPARA , PALAKKAD 678 593, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JAYAKUMAR M, AGED 52, S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD 670 014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 021. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH- STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.13364/19 2

JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner is a primary credit 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 P2, before the 2nd respondent appellate authority under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has also preferred Exhibit P3 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. 3.In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent appellate authority to take up consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P2 appeal preferred by the petitioner and to dispose of the same in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on the appeal, as directed above, coercive proceedings on the basis of the original order shall be kept in abeyance.

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 True copy PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →