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

WP(C)/13090/2019HC KeralaKLHC01032797201907 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 was 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. The Court directed the 2nd respondent appellate authority to take up, consider, and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P2 appeal 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 were to be kept in abeyance. The ratio decidendi is that statutory appeals should be disposed of expeditiously to avoid undue hardship to assessees and that recovery actions should be deferred pending such disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pottassery 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 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 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 for the disposal of their appeal before any recovery action is taken.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery of amounts based on the assessment order should be stayed pending the disposal of the statutory appeal filed by the assessee. (Question of law/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee 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 to dispose of the appeal before proceeding with recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel appeared for the respondents, but their specific contentions are not detailed. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's right to recover was subject to the disposal of the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WP(C).13090/19 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 17TH VAISAKHA, 1941 WP(C).No. 13090 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: THE POTTASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. P543, POTTASSERY, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678598, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JOLLY SEBASTIAN, AGED 54, S/O.DEVASSIA BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680021. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH-STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).13090/19 2 ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 13090 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of May, 2019

JUDGMENT 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. He 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.

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, 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 vgs7/5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →