THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9506/2019HC KeralaKLHC01024104201927 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while not deciding the merits of the assessment or the appeal, held that timely disposal of the stay petition was warranted. The Court issued a direction to the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of the order. As a consequential measure, the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the notice (Ext.P8) were stayed for a period of two months from the date of the order. The Court did not decide any substantive tax issues, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition's disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (1st respondent) to expeditiously dispose of its stay petition (Ext.P6). This action was prompted by a notice dated March 26, 2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2nd respondent) to the State Bank of India (3rd respondent) under Sections 222 to 225 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the assessment order (Ext.P1) was not final, an appeal had been filed, and recovery of disputed tax before the appeal's disposal would cause hardship and render the appeal ineffective. The Court noted these submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P6)? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and timely adjudication of tax disputes). Contentions: Assessee (The Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited): The assessment order has not become final, a statutory appeal has been filed, and a stay petition has been moved. Recovery of the disputed tax during the pendency of the appeal would cause hardship and render the appeal ineffective. Therefore, the stay petition needs to be disposed of expeditiously. Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax): No specific contentions are recorded in the judgment for the revenue regarding the disposal of the stay petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

222, 223, 224, 225

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 WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 9506 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED THRISSUR, SAHAKARANA SATABDHI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THRISSUR - 680 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN-CHARGE BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS THRISSUR - 680 001 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), RANGE - 2, THRISSUR - 680 001 3 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR - 680 001 SMT. ALEENA MARIA JOSE., SRI. G. G MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO.9506/19 2

JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Aleena Maria Jose, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax and Sri.G.G.Manoj, the learned counsel appearing for SBI.

2.

The petitioner prays for mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 stay petition expeditiously. The reason for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court is due to the notice dated 26.03.2019 issued by 2nd respondent to 3rd respondent under Section 222 to 225 of the Incone Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Assessment Order, Ext.P1 has not become final and statutory appeal is filed and also Ext.P6 stay petition is moved. The recovery in the interregnum of the disputed tax if is effected, the petitioner suffers hardship and the appeal would become ineffective. The submissions are merely noted and this Court is of the view that timely disposal of Ext.P6 stay petition is warranted in the facts and circumstances in the case. Hence the writ petition is disposed of by this order:-

W.P.(C)NO.9506/19 3 (a) 1st respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P6 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today. The recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 Assessment Order and Ext.P8 notice are stayed for two months from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Ac

W.P.(C)NO.9506/19 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE 29/12/2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 29/12/2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16/1/2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/3/2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 16/3/2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 26/3/2019 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/3/2019 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// Sd/- PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →