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

WP(C)/12868/2021HC KeralaKLHC01034841202129 June 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by issuing directions to the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal directed the 3rd respondent to decide the pending stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the statutory appeal (Ext.P2) within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the disposal of the stay petition, the respondents shall defer any recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1). The judgment did not delve into the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of recovery pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kuzhur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. Despite the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the respondents are reportedly initiating recovery proceedings for the amount determined in the assessment order. The petitioner filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking intervention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents are justified despite the pendency of a statutory appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the powers of the revenue authorities during the pendency of an appeal). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that recovery proceedings should not be initiated while their statutory appeal and stay petition are pending before the appellate authority. They sought the intervention of the High Court to halt these recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and sought to justify the actions of the respondents. No specific legal provisions or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for the revenue's argument.

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 A.M.BADAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12868 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: KUZHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED KAZHUR PO, THRISSUR – 680 734, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT. SUNITHA V.R. BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR G.REMADEVI V.J.MATHEW (M-1348) RAJATH R NATH HARIMA HARIHARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR PIN 680 001 2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI – 110 001 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI 220 001 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC,INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12868 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as against the assessment order at Ext.P1, issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal at Ext.P2 with a stay petition(Ext.P3), which are pending for consideration before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that despite pendency of the stay petition alongwith the appeal, the respondents are resorting to initiate recovery of the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the petition and sought to justify the action of the respondents.

Considering the fact that the statutory appeal alongwith stay petition challenging the assessment order is pending before the 3rd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:-

The 3rd respondent is directed to decide the pending stay application at Ext.P3 filed in the statutory appeal (Ext.P2) challenging the assessment order at Ext.P1, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Till disposal of this stay petition,

WP(C) NO. 12868 OF 2021 3 the respondents shall defer the recovery proceedings, if any, initiated for recovery, in pursuant to the assessment order at Ext.P1. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment. A.M.BADAR JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 12868 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 – COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 EXHIBIT P2 – COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 30-04-2021 AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P3 – COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30-04-2021 IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →