THE MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OP. EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.P-629 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/8545/2019HC KeralaKLHC01021710201921 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay application (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until the stay application is decided. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mannarkkad Taluk Co-operative Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also submitted a stay application (Ext.P3). The core of the petition revolves around the pending stay application before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on the stay application filed by the assessee, considering the pendency of the appeal against the assessment order? Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought a direction from the High Court to the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P3) within a stipulated period. The assessee also sought a stay on recovery proceedings pending the decision on the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned

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 THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No.8545 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: THE MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OP. EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.P-629, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.K. MOHANDAS, AGED 54, S/O. T.APPU NAIR BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 021 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.8545/2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner,

as against

Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, filed Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. The petitioner also filed Ext.P3 stay application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay application within two months. Till then, recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned order in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ln

WP(C).No.8545/2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL. //// P.A.TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →