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

WP(C)/12623/2021HC KeralaKLHC01034248202124 June 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to decide the pending stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of four months from the date of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court also directed that until the disposal of the stay petition, the respondents shall not initiate or continue recovery proceedings for the amount determined by the assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the respondents for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and the appeal. The Standing Counsel for the respondents was directed to communicate the judgment to the concerned respondent for compliance. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the validity of the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Koratty Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1). They have filed an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the appellate authority. The petitioner contends that despite the pending appeal and stay petition, the respondents are initiating recovery proceedings for the amount determined in the assessment order. The respondents, through their Standing Counsel, acknowledge that the appellate authority can decide the appeal or stay petition in a time-bound manner and suggest a suitable order be passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings can be initiated by the revenue while an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural rights of the assessee during appeal). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery proceedings should not be initiated while their appeal and stay petition are pending. They rely on the principle that the pendency of a stay petition should ordinarily halt recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Standing Counsel, submits that the appellate authority has the power to decide the appeal or the stay petition in a time-bound manner, implying that the court can direct such a decision. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by the revenue.

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 THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12623 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: KORATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED KORATTY, THRISSUR, 680 308 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. SANIL KUMAR N.G BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR G.REMADEVI 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, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12623 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

As against the assessment order at Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred an appeal at Ext.P2 with a stay petition(Ext.P3) . 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. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appellate authority can decide the appeal or atleast the stay petition in a time bound manner and therefore, suitable order can be passed in that regard.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to decide the pending stay petition at Ext.P3, within a period of four months from today, after hearing the petitioner. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall co-operate with the respondents in expeditious disposal of the stay petition as well as the appeal also. Till disposal of WP(C) NO. 12623 OF 2021 3 this stay petition (Ext.P3) as directed by this Court, the respondents shall not proceed to initiate and continue recovery proceedings for recovering the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned respondent for compliance. A.M.BADAR JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 12623 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 – COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 EXHIBIT P2 – COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 29-04-2021 AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P3 – COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29-04-2021 IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →