THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/8660/2020HC KeralaKLHC01022305202025 June 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 steps for taking possession or coercive measures under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act had been initiated, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the ITAT to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay application expeditiously, within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The principle established is that while a writ petition may not be the primary remedy when an alternative exists, the court can direct the alternative forum to act promptly, especially in the absence of immediate coercive action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Karakurissi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment order (Ext.P1) and appellate order (Ext.P2). A second appeal (Ext.P3) was preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), along with an interim application (Ext.P4) dated March 13, 2020, seeking to keep coercive measures against the petitioner in abeyance. 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. It also observed 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 an alternative remedy of pressing a stay application before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner is before the High Court seeking a direction for the ITAT to consider its stay application, implying a need for judicial intervention due to the pendency of coercive measures. (Implicitly argued by filing the writ petition). Revenue's contention: The writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by pressing the pending stay application before the ITAT. (Argued by the Revenue's counsel).

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 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.8660 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER/S: THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P.1025,KARAKURISSI,PALAKKAD-678595, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,A.JAYASREE, AGED 48,S/O A.ANIYAN MENON. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2,AYAKAR BHAVAN,PALAKKAD-678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THRISSUR-680021. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN,KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.8660 OF 2020 -2- JUDGMENT Dated this the 25th day of June 2020 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 13th March 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 appraised 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 WP(C).No.8660 OF 2020 -3- with a 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 VV JUDGE

WP(C).No.8660 OF 2020 -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2016-17 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →