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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8527/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021984202018 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ernakulam, to consider the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in support of the appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with law. The ITAT was also directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the revenue before passing an order. The ITAT was instructed to pass this order within a period of 45 days from the receipt of a certified copy of the High Court's judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any coercive measures contemplated or any demand raised against the petitioner should be kept in abeyance until the adjudication of the stay application. No specific issue regarding income tax law was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karakurissi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a primary agricultural credit society. It was aggrieved by an assessment order dated 22.12.2017 for assessment year 2015-16. An appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed on 17.02.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ernakulam, along with a stay application dated 13.03.2020. Both the appeal and the stay application were pending consideration before the ITAT. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking directions for the ITAT to consider the stay application within a timeframe, citing the threat of coercive steps.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to consider the pending stay application within a specified timeframe? (Question of procedure/administration) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that its appeal and stay application before the ITAT were pending. However, the threat of coercive steps was imminent, and it would be satisfied if the ITAT was directed to consider the stay application in accordance with law within a reasonable period. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-revenue, through its counsel, submitted that if the High Court issued any directions, the ITAT might face difficulties in deciding applications due to numerous appeals pending consideration prior to the petitioner's appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNE AY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8527 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.P 1025, KARAKURISSI, PALAKKAD - 678 595, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.JAYASREE, AGED 48, D/O.A.ANIYAN MENON. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR- 680 021. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2 WP(C).No.8527 OF 2020 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 18th day of March 2020 The petitioner, a primary agricultural credit society, against assessment order dated 22.12.2017 Ext.P1 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax having juri iction. The aforementioned appeal, vide order dated 17.02.2020 Ext.P2 was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against aforementioned dismissal order, preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam Ext.P3 and a stay application in Ext.P4 dated 13.03.2020 and the same are pending consideration. However as per the assertions made in the Writ Petition, the threat of coercive steps is looming large. Her client would be satisfied in case appropriate directions are issued to the ITAT to consider the stay application in accordance with law within some time frame.

2.

Issue notice before admission. Mr. Jose Joseph accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that in case any direction by this court, the Income Tax Appellate

3 WP(C).No.8527 OF 2020 Tribunal may be in difficulty in deciding the applications, since numerous appeals prior to the appeal of the petitioner are pending consideration.

3.

Having heard the counsel for the parties, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam to consider the application for stay Ext.P4 submitted in support of Ext.P3 appeal, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as well as the revenue and pass an order within a period of 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Till such time if any coercive measures are contemplated or any demand is raised, it is ordered to be kept in abeyance till the adjudication of stay application. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE SM

4 WP(C).No.8527 OF 2020

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2015-16. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →