THE KALLADIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. P 7489 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/13109/2019HC KeralaKLHC01032807201907 May 2019Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 assessment order. The Court directed the second respondent appellate authority 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 were passed on the appeal, coercive proceedings based on the original assessment order were to be kept in abeyance. The principle established is that statutory appeals should be adjudicated before recovery actions are pursued, and appellate authorities should be directed to dispose of pending appeals expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kalladikode Service Co-operative 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 to consider and dispose of its appeal before recovery proceedings are initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the pending appeal before coercive recovery proceedings are initiated based on the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that demands were being raised despite a statutory appeal being filed, implying a need for the appellate authority to adjudicate the matter before recovery. The assessee relied on the principle that appeals should be heard and decided before enforcement of demands. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the assessee. The standing counsel appeared for the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(C).13109/19 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. 13109 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: THE KALLADIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. P 7489 KALLADIKODE.P.O., PALAKKAD-678596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BINOY JOSEPH, AGED 43, JOSEPH.P.U. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-670014. 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).13109/19 2 ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 13109 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.

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, 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 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →