KOTTARAKARA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8736/2019HC KeralaKLHC01022212201922 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously, within two months. The Court further ordered that all coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P5) shall be deferred until the disposal of the stay petition. The reasoning is based on the procedural necessity of addressing the stay application before coercive measures are taken. The principle is that appellate authorities should endeavor to dispose of stay applications promptly to avoid undue hardship to assessees. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kottarakara Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging Ext.P5 demand notice. This notice was issued pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against the assessment order before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with a stay application (Ext.P4). The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and to defer coercive steps pending its disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously? (Question of procedure). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Kottarakara Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., sought an expeditious disposal of its stay application filed along with an appeal against the assessment order. They also sought a deferral of coercive steps until the stay petition was decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue (Income Tax Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) in response to the writ petition. The revenue's counsel was present.

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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 8736 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: KOTTARAKARA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.Q 1511, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTARAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 506 BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 OTHER PRESENT: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 8736 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved Ext.P5 demand notice. Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P4 stay application along with the appeal.

2.

In the light of the above, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 stay petition, expeditiously within two months. Till the disposal of the stay petition, all coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P5 notice shall be deferred. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE das

-3- W.P.(C). No. 8736 of 2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 26-12-2018 EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26-12-2018 EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ONLINE APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT-P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27-01-2019 EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18-03-2019 EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE NOTICE NO. DEMAND/W-2/KLM/2018-19 DATED 20-02- 2019 (WRONGLY SHOWN AS 20-02-2018) EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21- 02-2019 IN WP(C) NO.5070 OF 2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →