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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9913/2019HC KeralaKLHC01024969201929 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 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 petitions (Exts.P8, P10, and P12) within two months and the appeals (Exts.P7, P9, and P11) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court also granted a stay of recovery pursuant to the orders impugned in the respective appeals. The reasoning was based on the circumstances of the case, implying a need for timely adjudication of the petitioner's grievances. No specific issue was left undecided; the court provided a clear timeline for action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Edarikode 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 several stay petitions (Exts.P8, P10, and P12) and appeals (Exts.P7, P9, and P11). The respondents in the writ petition were various income tax authorities, including the Income Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, along with the District Co-operative Bank, Malappuram. The writ petition was filed on March 29, 2019.

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 assessee? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). The petitioner argued for a speedy resolution of their pending appeals and stay applications. The revenue did not appear to have made any specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the disposal of these matters, as the focus was on the court's direction.

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. 9913 of 2019 PETITIONER: EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F. 10739, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. ABDUJALEEL, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, EDARIKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676501. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, 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 DISRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK , MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505. 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: WP(C).No. 9913 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT Heard Sri. C.A Jojo, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

2.

The petitioner prays for a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P8, P10 and P12 stay petitions and Exts.P7, P9 and P11 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.P8, P10 and P12 stay petitions within two months and Exts.P7, P9 and P11 appeals as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be a stay of recovery pursuant to the orders impugned in the respective appeals. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Ac APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 22/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS.40,87,590/- DATED 22/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 27/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS.14,28,4670/- DATED 27/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 28/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TR5UE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS.1,06,84,145/- DATED 28/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2008- 09 DATED 08/04/2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 08/04/2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2015- 16 DATED 28/01/2018 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 27/02/2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016- 17 DATED 26/01/2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 AOF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 01/02/2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P13 AOF THE NOTICE DATED 28/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 AOF THE LETTER DATED 26/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →