THE KALLADIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7299/2019HC KeralaKLHC01018634201912 March 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to dispose of the stay petition filed in the appeal within two months. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive steps to recover the demand, based on the assessment order impugned in the appeal, shall be deferred until the disposal of the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application. The principle established is that in cases of pending stay petitions before appellate authorities, coercive recovery can be deferred pending a decision on the stay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kalladikode Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, is challenging an assessment order passed by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Palakkad. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with a stay petition. The assessment order resulted in a demand notice, which is also impugned. The present writ petition was filed seeking directions regarding the disposal of the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the stay petition filed in the appeal within a specified period? (Question of procedure/direction). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, The Kalladikode Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, implicitly seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of its stay petition and appeal, as evidenced by the filing of the writ petition. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for this contention. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the revenue's side regarding the disposal of the stay petition or appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 7299 of 2019 PETITIONER: THE KALLADIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO. P 7489, KALLADIKKODE, PALAKKAD- 678 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BINOY JOSEPH, AGED 43, S/O. JOSEPH. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD -678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 021. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.7299/2019 JUDGMENT The petitioner as against the assessment order passed by the first respondent produced as Ext. P1, preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P2 is the appeal. The petitioner also filed Ext.P3 stay petition. Ext.P1(37) is the demand notice issued in the matter. In the light of the above, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the stay petition filed in the appeal within two months. Till the disposal of the above stay petition, all coercive steps to recover the demand, based on the order impugned in the appeal, shall be deferred. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE akv JUDGE

WP(C)No.7299/2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016- 17 DATED 26.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 16.1.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 16.1.2019. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// CA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →