THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. P 585 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5491/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014658202005 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition would not lie as the petitioner's remedy was to press the pending stay application before the ITAT. However, considering that no steps for demand or attachment proceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act had been initiated, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the ITAT (3rd respondent) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but directed the ITAT to expedite the decision on the interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pattambi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment order Ext.P1 and appellate order Ext.P2. A second appeal, Ext.P3, was preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Along with the appeal, an interim application, Ext.P4, dated 07.02.2020, was filed seeking to keep coercive measures against the petitioner in abeyance. The Revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner's remedy was to press the pending stay application before the ITAT. The High Court noted that the pleadings did not mention any steps for taking possession. It also observed that no demand or attachment proceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act had been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of pressing a stay application before the ITAT is available? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner is before the High Court seeking a direction for the ITAT to consider their stay application. The writ petition is filed due to the pendency of the stay application and the potential for coercive measures. Revenue's contention: The writ petition does not lie as the petitioner's remedy is to press the pending stay application before the ITAT. The High Court should not entertain the writ petition when the statutory appellate authority is seized of the matter and has the power to grant interim relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 281

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 AMIT RAWAL THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5491 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER: THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. P 585, RAZMALL COMPLEX, PALLIPURAM ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY, C.GIRIJA, AGED 58, D/O. E.P.NARAYANAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680 001. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. SC ADV.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5491 OF 2020(J) 2

JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that against the order of assessment, Ext.P1 and appellate order Ext.P2, preferred a second appeal, Ext.P3 before the 3rd respondent ie., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) along with the interim application, Ext.P4 dated 07.02.2020, till such time, the contemplated coercive measures against the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.

Counsel for the Revenue submits that the writ petition would not lie as the remedy for the petitioner is to press the pending stay application before the ITAT. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and apprised the paper book, I am of the view that the pleadings are bereft of any steps for taking of possession by making mention or otherwise before the ITAT. Be that as it may, considering the fact that no steps of demand or attachment proceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act have been initiated, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on WP(C).No.5491 OF 2020(J) 3 the application of stay in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE

WP(C).No.5491 OF 2020(J) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 20.12.2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 10.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2014-15 DATED 7.2.2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.2.2020. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →