THE MANNARKKAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.P.934 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/13096/2019HC KeralaKLHC01032794201907 May 2019Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala 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 appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up, consider, and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Exhibit P2) in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the appeal, 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, but focused on the procedural aspect of ensuring the appeal is heard before recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mannarkkad Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (a primary credit society), received an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved, it 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 for the disposal of its appeal before recovery proceedings are initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer's assessment order is valid, and if not, whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be considered before any recovery actions are taken? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that demands were being raised in terms of the assessment orders despite a statutory appeal having been filed. They sought a direction for the disposal of the appeal before coercive recovery proceedings are initiated. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the presence of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as respondents indicates their involvement in the assessment and appellate process.

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 TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 17TH VAISAKHA, 1941 WP(C).No. 13096 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: THE MANNARKKAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.P.934 MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINIMOL.K., AGED 51, W/O.ANIL KUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA 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).13096/19 2 ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 13096 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 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →