CHALAKUDY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.R 192 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/9001/2021HC KeralaKLHC01023863202108 April 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was directed to decide the stay petition (Ext.P3) filed in connection with the appeal (Ext.P2) within two months from the date of communication of the judgment. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the 3rd respondent for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Crucially, the Court directed that until the stay petition is disposed of by the 3rd respondent, the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of staying recovery pending the appeal's adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chalakudy Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents. The petitioner had previously suffered an assessment order (Ext.P1) and had filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) against it. Despite the pendency of the appeal, recovery proceedings were initiated. The petitioner sought a stay on these proceedings until the appeal was decided. The respondents' counsel suggested that the stay application be placed before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) for a time-bound disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order should be stayed pending the disposal of the statutory appeal. The assessee argued that recovery proceedings were initiated despite the pendency of their statutory appeal and stay petition, and therefore, these proceedings should be halted until the appeal is decided. The revenue contended that the assessee could place the stay application before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) and request its disposal in a time-bound manner.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR THUR AY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943 WP(C).No.9001 OF 2021(A) PETITIONER/S: CHALAKUDY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.R 192 CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.SABIN K.P. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.G.REMADEVI SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN SHRI.RAJATH R NATH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, THRISSUR - 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 - 110 001. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH , STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.9001 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 8th day of April 2021

Heard both sides.

The petitioner has suffered assessment order at Ext.P1 and feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal at Ext.P2 along with stay petition at Ext.P3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite pendency of the statutory appeal, the respondents have initiated recovery proceedings in respect of the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1 and therefore, those proceedings needs to be stayed till disposal of the appeal.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioner can very well place the stay application before the 3rd respondent and it can be directed to be disposed of in a time bound manner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

The 3rd respondent is directed to decide the stay petition at Ext.P3 in an appeal at Ext.P2, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment. The petitioner to cooperate with the 3rd respondent in disposal of the stay petition

WP(C).No.9001 OF 2021 3 expeditiously as directed by this Court. Till disposal of the said petition at Ext.P3, the respondents are directed to keep the recovery proceedings initiated in pursuant to the assessment order at Ext.P1 in abeyance. A.M.BADAR ajt JUDGE

WP(C).No.9001 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09/03/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 05/04/2021 AGAINST IN EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05/04/2021 IN EXT.P1 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →