M/S. MADAI CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/9902/2019HC KeralaKLHC01024935201911 April 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of Exts.P9 to P11 stay petitions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. As a consequential measure, the recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders under appeal before the third respondent were stayed for two months from the date of the judgment. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the underlying appeals or the stay petitions themselves, but rather on the procedural aspect of timely disposal. The ratio decidendi is that courts can direct quasi-judicial authorities to dispose of pending matters expeditiously, and can grant interim relief in the form of a stay on recovery proceedings pending such disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Madai Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary In-Charge, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction to the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to expeditiously consider and dispose of stay petitions marked as Exts.P9 to P11. These stay petitions were filed in relation to appeals pending before the third respondent. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kannur Range, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously consider and dispose of pending stay petitions (Issues P9 to P11)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the stay petitions (Exts.P9 to P11) expeditiously. The petitioner relied on the general principle of timely disposal of quasi-judicial proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or contentions from the revenue's side regarding the merits of the stay petitions or the delay in disposal are recorded.

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 S.V.BHATTI THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 9902 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: M/S. MADAI CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD PAYANGADI P.O.KANNUR-670 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SERETARY IN-CHARGE P.VIMALA BY ADVS. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.C.T.SUJA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR-670006R 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 9902/2019 -2-

J U D G M E N T Heard Sri Arun Raj S., the petitioner's counsel and Sri Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner prays for a direction to the third respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P9 to P11 stay petitions expeditiously.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P9 to P11 stay petitions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders under appeal before the third respondent are stayed for two months from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE jjj -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P3OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.12.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P4OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P5OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P6OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P7OF THE APPLICATION OF STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT INTERALIA FOR THE AY 2013-14,2014-2015 AND 2016-17 EXHIBIT P8OF THE ORDER DATED 27.3.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE INTERALIA FOR THE AYS 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2016-17 -4- EXHIBIT P9OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P10OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2014-15 EXHIBIT P11OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →