SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19187/2023HC KeralaKLHC01041779202328 March 2025Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, per Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, held that the writ petition had become infructuous based on the submission made by the petitioner's learned counsel. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. No specific findings were made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute, as the dismissal was purely procedural due to the matter becoming infructuous. The reasoning was solely predicated on the petitioner's counsel stating that the matter no longer required adjudication. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sulthan Bathery Service Co-operative Bank, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The respondents included the Income Tax Officer, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition was filed challenging an order or action, though the specific nature of the challenge and the assessment year(s) are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is also not elaborated upon. The core of the matter is that the petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the writ petition filed by the Sulthan Bathery Service Co-operative Bank had become infructuous. The petitioner, through their learned counsel, submitted that the matter had indeed become infructuous. The respondents, represented by Sri. Christopher Abraham, SC, Income Tax Department, did not appear to have made any specific arguments recorded in the provided text regarding the infructuousness of the petition. The question before the court was solely based on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP(C) NO. 19187 OF 2023 1 2025:KER:27845 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 19187 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REP BY ITS SECRETARY , SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, PIN - 673592 BY ADVS. M.P.ASHOK KUMAR BINDU SREEDHAR ASIF N SUDHAKARAN P. RESPONDENTS : 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 2, KALPETTA, AYAKAR BHAVAN, WAYANAD, PIN – 673 121 2 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RANGE – 2, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001 3 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, C-BLOCK, SPM CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), PIN - 110 001 4 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I & C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD COCHIN, REP BY IT’S REGISTRAR, PIN – 682 037

WP(C) NO. 19187 OF 2023 2 2025:KER:27845 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 19187 OF 2023 3 2025:KER:27845 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- W.P.(C) No.19187 of 2023 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has become infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →