THE SB COLLEGE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO. K 356, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32164/2023HC KeralaKLHC01071322202319 October 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, in accordance with law. If the appeal could not be disposed of within that period, the petition for interim relief/stay was to be decided within the same two-month period, in accordance with law. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself but ensured its timely disposal. The ratio of the decision is that when an appeal and stay petition are pending before an appellate authority, and a writ petition is filed seeking expeditious disposal and a stay, the High Court can direct the appellate authority to decide the matter within a stipulated timeframe. The operative direction was to decide the appeal and/or stay petition expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The SB College Staff Co-operative Society Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an assessment order (Ext.P1) and seeks a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the first respondent) to reconsider their appeal (Ext.P3) on merits. The petitioner also sought a stay on coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order until the appeal and stay petition (Ext.P4) were decided. The appeal and stay petition were pending before the first respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), should be directed to reconsider the petitioner's appeal on merits, taking into account the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and Ors Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another and the Kerala High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank? (Question of law and fact, concerning the appellate authority's duty to consider binding precedents). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal should be decided on merits, relying on the aforementioned Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The petitioner also sought a stay on coercive proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from 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 DINESH KUMAR SINGH THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 32164 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: THE SB COLLEGE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO. K 356, CHENGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686101.REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, 110 001. 2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI 110 001. SMT.RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 32164 OF 2023 2

J U D G M E N T The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 appeal on merit taking note of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and Ors Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another - 2021 (1) KHC 303 SC = 431 ITR 1 and also dictum laid down in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Ker) and pass appropriate order in the appeal. ii) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from taking coercive proceedings against the petitioner, in pursuance to Ext.P1 assessment till orders are passed in the appeal and stay petition pending before the 1st respondent.”

2.

Appeal, Ext.P3, filed by the petitioner against the assessment order, Ext.P1, along with petition for interim stay, Ext.P4, are pending before the appellate authority, first respondent.

WP(C) NO. 32164 OF 2023 3

3.

In view of the above, first respondent, appellate authority, is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months, in accordance with law. If the first respondent, appellate authority, is unable to dispose of the appeal within the aforesaid period, at least, the petition for interim relief/stay shall be decided within the aforesaid period of two months, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is finally disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, in the writ petition stand dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGE jg

WP(C) NO. 32164 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32164/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADJUDICATION ORDER DATED 15.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 156 OF INCOME TAX ACT DATED 15/9/2021 Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 2.12.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/10/2021

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →