Malappuram District Government School Teachers Co-operative Society Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

WP(C)/18595/2023HC KeralaKLHC01040459202308 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 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 consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if a conditional order of stay was proposed, the second respondent must state the reasons for it. The direction to consider the stay petition would not prevent the second respondent from considering the appeal (Ext.P3) itself. Crucially, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P5 were deferred until an order was passed on the stay petition (Ext.P4). The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Malappuram District Government School Teachers Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner is challenging assessment orders (Ext.P1) and a demand notice (Ext.P5) issued by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) on October 15, 2022, and subsequently filed a stay petition (Ext.P4) in connection with this appeal. Despite the pendency of the stay petition, the respondents were reportedly threatening to enforce the assessment order. The writ petition sought directions for the expeditious disposal of the appeal and stay petition, and for a deferral of further proceedings until then.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider and dispose of the pending stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously, and if so, within what timeframe? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the second respondent should be directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 stay petition expeditiously. They also sought a deferral of all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 until the stay petition was decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that Sri. Christopher Abraham appeared for the respondents. No specific arguments or contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THUR AY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18595 OF 2023 PETITIONER: MALAPPURAM DISTRICT GOVERNMENT SCHOOL TEACHERS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD LTD. NO.D 1935, NEAR BUS STAND KOTTAPADI, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 679325 BY ADVS.C.A.JOJO SWATHY S. S.JIJI RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, TIRUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TARIFF BAZAR, TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 676101 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 18595 OF 2023 JUDGMENT Dated this the 8th day of June 2023 The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition, expeditiously and until such time, to defer all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 passed by the first respondent.

The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The first respondent has passed Ext.P1 assessment order and has now issued Ext.P5 demand. The petitioner has already preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent on 15.10.2022. Later, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 stay petition in Ext.P3 appeal. Notwithstanding the pendency of Ext.P4 stay petition, the respondents are threatening to enforce Ext.P1 assessment order through Ext.P5 letter. Hence, the writ petition.

WP(C) NO. 18595 OF 2023 3. Heard; Sri. C.A.Jojo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P4 stay petition is already pending consideration before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: (i) The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose

of Ext.P4 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii)

Needless

to mention

that,

if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall state reasons for the same. (iii) The direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 stay petition will not stand in WP(C) NO. 18595 OF 2023 the way of the second respondent considering Ext.P3 appeal itself. (iv) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P4 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 & P5 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes

WP(C) NO. 18595 OF 2023

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2020-21 DATED 20.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.96,59,966/- U/S 156 DATED 20.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2020-21 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2022. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2020-21 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.05.2023. Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36879/2022 DATED 22.11.2022. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →