PALODE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 10672 of 2019 PETITIONER/S:

M/S. PALODE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.T.862, KUSAVOOR, KARIMANCODE PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695562., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. SHRI.R.VAIJUKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), AYAKKAR BHAWAN, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005. SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.10672/19 2 JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Nisha John, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 stay order particularly the condition imposed by the 2nd respondent while granting stay of assessment order dated 28.12.2018 for the assessment year 2016-2017. According to the petitioner the grounds raised by the petitioner ought to have been taken note of and these grounds demonstrably show that the petitioner has made out prima facie case and firstly stay ought to have been granted without the condition, secondly the condition to deposit 20% is without basis, and finally the time granted to comply with the condition is too short to pay the 20% of tax demanded. 3. Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel contends that the first two grounds raised by the petitioner do not come, in the facts and circumstances of this case within the scope of judicial review of this Court and the court can consider granting reasonable instalments to comply with the condition of depositing 20% of the tax demanded through assessment order dated 28.12.2018 instead of

W.P.(C)No.10672/19 3 setting aside the impugned order. 4. This Court prima facie is of the view that the discretion both while granting the stay order and imposing the condition, does not warrant interference in the facts of this case, however, to provide little breathing space to petitioner firstly to comply with the condition and effectively contest the appeal the petitioner is granted three equal monthly instalments for complying with the condition imposed in the impugned order. The first payable instalment falls on 17th of April, 2019, second instalment on 17.05.2019 and third instalment is on 17.06.2019. The default of any one of the installments the protection granted by this Court is vacated and it is for the Authorities to recover the outstanding tax and interest in accordance with law. In the interregnum subject to complying with the installments coercive steps are stayed.

Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Ac

W.P.(C)No.10672/19 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 28.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 25.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 25.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT U.S 220(6). EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.03.2019 IN WPC NO.6252 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 25.03.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// Sd/- PA TO JUDGE