THE POTTASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/8922/2020HC KeralaKLHC01022764202024 June 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent (ITAT) to take a decision on the appeal (Ext.P3) and the stay application (Ext.P4) in accordance with law. This decision is to be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the demand notice shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the interim application. It was clarified that the interim stay is only till the disposal of the interim application and not beyond. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pottassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay application (Ext.P4) that were pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioner is represented by its Secretary. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the ITAT. The writ petition was filed seeking expeditious disposal of the pending appeal and stay application before the ITAT. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the pending appeal and stay application filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/administration) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal and stay application before the ITAT. No specific legal arguments were presented, but the prayer itself indicates the issue. Revenue's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the judgment. The judgment indicates that the learned counsel for the parties were heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNE AY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.8922 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: THE POTTASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P-543, POTTASSERY, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 598, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JOLLY SEBASTIAN, AGED 56, S/O.DEVASSIA. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BAHVAN, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680 021. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.8922 OF 2020(M) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 24

th day of June 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 appeal and stay application Ext.P4 in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till such time, recovery proceedings pursuant to the demand notice shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim stay is till the disposal of the interim application and not beyond. AMIT RAWAL Dxy JUDGE

WP(C).No.8922 OF 2020(M) 3

WP(C).No.8922 OF 2020(M) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ODER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR TYH YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2013-14. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →