MUDAVANMUGHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) KOWDIAR

WP(C)/6249/2019HC KeralaKLHC01016307201901 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had exercised its statutory remedy of filing an appeal in a timely manner and had also filed a stay petition. The Court found that procedural fairness dictates that authorities should await the appellate authority's decision on the stay petition before taking further steps. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope for an expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the appellate authority. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of coercive steps.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mudavanmughal Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is a co-operative society. It challenged an assessment order (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trivandrum. The petitioner filed both an appeal and a stay petition. Alleging that the Income Tax authorities were initiating coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition, the petitioner filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax authorities can initiate coercive steps against the assessee while an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and the Income Tax Act's provisions on appeals and stay). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps were being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority had an opportunity to consider its stay petition. They sought a deferral of such actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 6249 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: MUDAVANMUGHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO T 847, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V.G.MAHILA, S/O JAYAKUMARAN NAIR, POOJAPPURA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN 695012 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) KOWDIAR TRIVANDRUM- 695 003. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM- 695 003. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.6249/2019 -2-

J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, questioned the Ext.P2 assessment order, before the second respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition, too. Ventilating its grievance that the Income Tax authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition in the appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.

W.P.(C) No.6249/2019 -3- Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the second respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the second respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 7/11/2017 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 23/1/2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 14/2/2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 6/2/2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →