THE ALANALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5509/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014681202005 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 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 (the third respondent) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay application in accordance with law, expeditiously, within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the ITAT to expedite its decision on the interim relief sought.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Alanallur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment order (Ext.P1) and appellate order (Ext.P2). The petitioner had preferred a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the third respondent, and filed an interim application (Ext.P4) seeking to keep coercive measures in abeyance until the appeal was decided. 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 no steps for taking possession 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 a statutory remedy of pressing a stay application before the ITAT is available to the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, is seeking a direction from the High Court to the ITAT to consider their pending stay application. The petitioner relies on the fact that coercive measures are contemplated against them. Revenue's Contention: The writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative remedy to pursue their stay application before the ITAT. The Revenue argues that the petitioner should press their pending stay application before the ITAT.

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.5509 OF 2020(K) PETITIONER: THE ALANALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 1178, ALANALLUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678601, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.SREENIVASAN, AGED 47, S/O. SANKARAN. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-68001 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030, 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.5509 OF 2020(K) 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 03.02.2020, till such time, the contemplated coercive measures against the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.

2.

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

WP(C).No.5509 OF 2020(K) 3 to 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on 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.5509 OF 2020(K) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2015-16 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →