M/S.KOLLAM DISTRICT POSTAL TELECOM, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7118/2019HC KeralaKLHC01018356201908 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed that the review petition filed by the assessee before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax shall be considered within a period of one month, after issuing notice to the petitioner. Furthermore, all coercive steps initiated pursuant to the notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act (Ext.P18) were ordered to be deferred until the review petition is decided. If the petitioner's bank account had already been frozen, the bank was directed to de-freeze it. The Court did not decide on the merits of the review petition itself but ensured its timely consideration and provided interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kollam District Postal Telecom BSNL Employee's Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a review petition (Ext.P17) before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. This review petition sought to challenge a decision by the Assessing Authority requiring the deposit of 20% of the demand for granting a stay. Concurrently, a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act was issued to the Kollam District Co-operative Bank, directing it to freeze the petitioner's account. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala by way of a writ petition (civil) seeking relief against these actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax should consider the review petition filed by the assessee seeking review of the Assessing Authority's decision regarding the deposit of 20% of the demand for stay. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that their review petition before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax should be considered. They sought a stay of coercive steps pending the disposal of this review petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the review petition itself. However, the issuance of the notice under Section 226(3) indicates the revenue's intent to recover the demand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3)

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 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 7118 of 2019 PETITIONERS: M/S.KOLLAM DISTRICT POSTAL TELECOM, BSNL EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.Q.880, KOLLAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLLAM RANGE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOLLAM-691001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM-695003. 3 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-695003. 4 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOLLAM MAIN BRANCH, PIN-691001. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7118 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner is Kollam District Postal Telcom BSNL Employee's Co-operative Society Ltd. Ext.P17 is a review petition filed by them before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvanathapuram seeking review of the decision of the Assessing Authority to deposit 20% of demand for granting stay. In the meanwhile, a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act is issued to garnishee-Kollam District Co-operative Bank to freeze the account.

2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the review petition shall be considered within a period of one month, after issuing notice to the petitioner. Till then, all coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P18 shall be deferred. If the account has been freeze, the bank shall be de-freeze the account. The writ petition is disposed of as above. SAS/08/03/2019 //// A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE P.A. TO JUDGE JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2012-13 DATED 29.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2013-14 DATED 29.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2014-15 DATED 29.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2015-16 DATED 29.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2016-17 DATED 31.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE LETTER DATED 11.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 29.01.2019 FILED FOR ABY 2012-13 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 29.01.2019 FILED FOR AY 2013-14 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 29.01.2019 FILED FOR AY 2014-15 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 29.01.2019 FILED FOR AY 2015-16 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 29.01.2019 FILED FOR AY 2016-17 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 AOF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 05.02.2019. EXHIBIT P13 AOF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 05.02.2019. EXHIBIT P14 AOF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 05.02.2019. EXHIBIT P15 AOF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 05.02.2019. EXHIBIT P16 AOF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 05.02.2019. EXHIBIT P17 AOF THE REVIEW PETITION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS DATED 20.02.2019. EXHIBIT P18 AOF THE NOTICE UNDER S.226(3) OF THE IT ACT DATED 01.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →