KANMANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.10585, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/12704/2019HC KeralaKLHC01031947201926 April 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P4). The court permitted the Commissioner to conduct further hearings if necessary. Crucially, the court ordered that coercive steps pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and demand notice (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until an order is passed on the stay petition. The judgment did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the procedural step of passing an order on the stay petition and provided interim relief by staying coercive actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kanmanam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, a co-operative society, received an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a demand notice (Ext.P2) from the Income Tax Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Despite a hearing on the stay petition, no order had been passed. Meanwhile, coercive steps were initiated to recover the assessed amount. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to pass orders on the stay petition and to stay coercive steps.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pass an order on the stay petition filed by the assessee, considering the delay in passing such an order and the initiation of coercive steps. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite a hearing on their stay petition, no order had been passed. Pending the appeal and stay petition, coercive steps were being taken for the recovery of the assessed amount, causing prejudice. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and a stay on coercive measures. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded in the judgment for the revenue.

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 MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019/6TH VAISAKHA, 1941 W.P.(C)No.12704 of 2019 PETITIONER: KANMANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.10585, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KANMANAM, P.O.TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 551. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, TIRUR TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR-676 101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. OTHER PRESENT: S.C. : ADVOCATE CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - FOR (R1, R2) S.C. SRI. I.V PRAMOD - FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.12704 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, was served with Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2 demand notice. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though hearing was conducted on Ext.P4 stay petition, no orders are passed till date. It is submitted that, pending the appeal and the stay petition, coercive steps have been initiated for realisation of the amount assessed as per Ext.P1.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

In the light of the submissions made by the contesting parties, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, if necessary by conducting further hearing. Till such time, as an order is passed on Ext.P4, coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 shall be kept in abeyance. V.G.ARUN ss JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2017 FOR AY 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APEAL FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 21.01.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 23.02.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 14.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 21.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →