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

WP(C)/5473/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014631202002 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was maintainable, despite the pendency of a stay application before the ITAT. The Court observed that the pleadings in the writ petition did not indicate any steps for taking possession, nor had any demand or attachment proceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act been initiated. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the ITAT to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's stay application expeditiously, within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The ratio decidendi is that while statutory remedies are preferred, the High Court may intervene to direct expeditious disposal of interim applications when there is no immediate threat of coercive action and the statutory forum has not yet acted on the interim plea.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pattambi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging orders of assessment and appeal. The bank had preferred a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and simultaneously filed an interim application seeking to keep coercive measures against it in abeyance until the appeal was decided. The Revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner's remedy was to pursue the pending stay application before the ITAT. The High Court noted that the pleadings did not mention any steps for taking possession and 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 the petitioner has a pending statutory remedy of a stay application before the ITAT? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought interim relief from the High Court to prevent coercive measures while their appeal was pending before the ITAT. The petitioner implicitly argued that the High Court's intervention was necessary to protect its interests pending the ITAT's decision on the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, asserting that the petitioner's proper recourse was to press their pending stay application before the ITAT. They relied on the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

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 MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5473 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER/S: THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 585, RAZMALL COMPLEX, PALLIPURAM ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD - 679 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.GIRIJA, AGED 58, D/O.E.P.NARAYANAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 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. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5473 OF 2020(H) 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 7th February 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 lay 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 281 of the Income Tax Act have been initiated, I dispose of the writ petition with a WP(C).No.5473 OF 2020(H) 3 direction 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 sab JUDGE

WP(C).No.5473 OF 2020(H) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2010-11. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →