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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9982/2019HC KeralaKLHC01024995201929 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P4) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the appeal (Ext.P3) was directed to be disposed of within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. As an interim measure, recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders under appeal before the second respondent were stayed for three months from the date of the judgment. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition, but rather on the procedural aspect of their timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tanalur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary in Charge, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction for the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to expeditiously consider and dispose of an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4). The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Income Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal and a stay petition before the second respondent, which the petitioner sought to have resolved promptly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously dispose of the pending appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee. The petitioner argued for an early resolution of their pending appeal and stay petition. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in this regard, but the court's direction implies a need for timely action from the appellate authority. The core issue is the procedural delay in the appellate process and the court's intervention to ensure timely disposal.

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 FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 9982 of 2019 PETITIONER: TANALUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.M2, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE SAJEEV P.K., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR K., PURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676307. 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-676101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. 4 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 5 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676307. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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 Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition 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 Ext.P4 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months and Ext.P3 appeal 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 Css/

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 19/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS. 96,67,197/- DATED 19/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 17/01/2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2016- 17 DATED 22/01/2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 21/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 15/03/2019 FOR AY 2016-17. EXHIBIT P7OF THE NOTICE U/S. 226(3) DATED 28/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →