PONMUDAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/10024/2019HC KeralaKLHC01025112201901 April 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the stay petitions (Exts. P5 and P7) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the appeals (Exts. P4 and P6) were directed to be disposed of within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered a stay on recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders under appeal before the second respondent for a period of three months from the date of the judgment. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeals themselves, but rather on the procedural aspect of their timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ponmundam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought a direction for the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to expeditiously consider and dispose of stay petitions (Exts. P5 and P7) and appeals (Exts. P4 and P6). The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Income Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The specific assessment years and the amounts in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of appeals and stay petitions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously dispose of pending stay petitions and appeals filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). The petitioner argued for an expeditious disposal of their pending appeals and stay petitions before the second respondent. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or case law were cited by either party in the provided text.

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 MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 10024 of 2019 PETITIONER: PONMUNDAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO. 10820, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.P BAHAVUDHEEN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, PONMUNDAM P.O, VAILATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 106 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, 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 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R BLDG, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI PIN 682 018. 4 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 5 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 676 106. SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10024 of 2019 -2-

JUDGMENT Heard Sri.C.A.Jojo, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner prays for a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P7 stay petitions and Exts.P4 and P6 appeals expeditiously.

3.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P7 stay petitions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months and Exts.P4 and P6 appeals within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders under appeal before the second respondent are stayed for three months from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS

WP(C).No. 10024 of 2019 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 22-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 18-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS. 38,86,899/- DATED 18-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 22-01-2018 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 20-02-2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 16-01-2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 22-01-2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 21-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 15-3-2019 FOR AY 2015-16 EXHIBIT P10OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 15-3-2019 FOR AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P11OF THE NOTICE UNDER 226(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 28-3-2019 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →