EDAPPILLY VADAKKUMBHAGAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8788/2019HC KeralaKLHC01022307201922 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the demand notice, Ext.P10, shall not be enforced pending the appeal unless the stay order, Ext.P6, is varied or the appeal is disposed of. The Court's reasoning was based on the existence of the stay order (Ext.P6) which was considered paramount. The operative direction was that the demand notice should not be enforced. No specific issue was left undecided. The ratio decidendi is that a demand notice cannot be enforced if it is in contravention of a valid stay order, and such enforcement should be halted until the stay is lifted or the underlying appeal is decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Edappilly Vadakkumbhagam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner challenged Ext.P10 demand notice. The core of the petitioner's argument was that this demand was illegal in light of a stay order, Ext.P6. The respondents were various authorities within the Income Tax Department, including the Income Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and other Joint and Assistant Commissioners. The procedural history leading to the writ petition involves the issuance of a demand notice (Ext.P10) which the petitioner contended was in contravention of a pre-existing stay order (Ext.P6).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand notice (Ext.P10) issued by the respondent authorities is illegal and unenforceable in light of the stay order (Ext.P6) granted to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the demand notice is illegal and should not be enforced because a stay order (Ext.P6) was already in place. The petitioner contended that the demand notice directly contravenes the existing stay order. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue side regarding this issue. The court was asked to decide on the enforceability of the demand in the context of the stay order.

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. 8788 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: EDAPPILLY VADAKKUMBHAGAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1431, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SINDHU C.U., AGED 53 YEARS, W/O PUSHPARAJAN, EDAPPILLY NORTH P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 041. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5) RANGE 1, NON CORPORATE, CR BLDG, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, NEAR MANORAMA JN, KOCHI-682 036. 3 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R BLDG, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN-682 018. 4 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R BLDG, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN-682 018. 5 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R BLDG, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN-682 018. -2- W.P.(C). No. 8788 of 2019 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:

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P10 demand. The petitioner submits that in the light of Ext.P6 stay order, the demand is illegal.

2.

In the light of Ext.P6, the order passed by the 4th respondent - the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, I am of the view that Ext.P10 shall not be enforced pending appeal unless and until the stay order is varied or appeal is disposed of. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE das

-3- W.P.(C). No. 8788 of 2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KANAYANNUR DATED 21.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2016 FOR AY 2011-12 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2011- 12 DATED 23.1.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2011-12 DATED 23.1.2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE ROM DATED 29.12.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 4.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →