VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2522, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/6487/2021HC KeralaKLHC01017230202115 March 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre) to decide the pending stay petition (Ext.P5) within a period of three months from the date of communication of the judgment. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the 4th respondent in the disposal of the stay petition. Crucially, the respondents were restrained from effecting recovery pursuant to the notice of demand (Ext.P3) until the disposal of the stay petition. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment or the appeal, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expediting the stay petition and providing interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vilappil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging a notice of demand (Ext.P3) issued by the respondents for recovery of an amount determined by an assessment order (Ext.P2). The petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P4) along with a stay petition (Ext.P5) against the assessment order before the 4th respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Despite the pendency of these appeals and stay petitions, the respondents were attempting to recover the disputed amount. The petitioner sought a stay on the recovery notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the 4th respondent to decide the pending stay petition expeditiously, considering the petitioner's submission that recovery proceedings are being initiated despite the pendency of an appeal and stay petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents were seeking to recover the amount determined by the assessment order (Ext.P2) through a notice of demand (Ext.P3) despite the pendency of their appeal (Ext.P4) and stay petition (Ext.P5) before the 4th respondent. They sought a stay of the notice of demand. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and contended that, at most, the 4th respondent could be directed to decide the stay petition expeditiously.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942 WP(C).No.6487 OF 2021(I) PETITIONER: VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2522, HEAD OFFICE, PEYYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, S. RICHARDSON, S/O. S. STEPHENSON, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT TRIPTHI, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU SRI.P.A.RAJESH SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF SRI.R.B.RAJESH SMT.DIYA P.JISON SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 003. 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO.356, C.R.BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI - 110 002 4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), ROOM NO.356, C.R.BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI - 110 002 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 15th day of March 2021 Heard both sides.

As against the assessment order at Ext.P2, the petitioner- Society has preferred an appeal, Ext.P4 along with stay petition, Ext.P5 which are reportedly pending before the 4th respondent. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite pendency of appeal as well as stay petition, respondents are seeking to recover the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P2 vide notice at Ext.P3. The petitioner is therefore seeking stay of the notice of demand at Ext.P3. 3. Learned Standing Counsel who takes notice for respondents opposed the writ petition and contended that, at the most the 4th respondent can be directed to decide the stay petition expeditiously. Considering the submissions so advanced and looking into the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to decide the pending stay petition, Ext.P5, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment. The petitioner to co-operate the 4th respondent in disposal of the stay petition, Ext.P5. Till disposal of the stay petition at Ext.P5, respondents are restrained from effecting recovery in pursuant to the notice of demand at Ext.P3. This writ petition is disposed of as above. A.M.BADAR JUDGE smp

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 1.11.2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 2.3.2021 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 2.3.2021 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED, 10.3.2021 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT P4 APPEAL DATED, 10.3.2021 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. True Copy P.S to Judge smp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →