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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9934/2019HC KeralaKLHC01024981201929 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the circumstances, 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, and the appeal (Ext.P3) within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the Court ordered a stay on recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders under appeal for three months from the date of the judgment. The principle established is that courts can direct quasi-judicial authorities to dispose of pending matters within a stipulated timeframe to ensure timely relief to the assessee, while also granting interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ariyallur 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 its pending appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4). The appeal and stay petition were filed against orders passed by income tax authorities. The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Income Tax Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, along with the District Co-operative Bank, Malappuram.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of its pending appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the second respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P3 appeal expeditiously. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for this contention. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments or contentions from the revenue side regarding the expeditious disposal of the appeal and stay petition. The revenue was represented by a Standing Counsel.

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. 9934 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: ARIYALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO. F 7730, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SMITHA K., AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. KADUNGI, ARIYALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676312. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/S: 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, MAMANCHIRA, 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-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. 9934 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 Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P3 appeal 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 Ac

WP(C).No. 9934 of 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 28/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS.40,10,598/- DATED 28/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 12/01/2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 16/01/2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →