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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8440/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021866202018 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 Tribunal was instructed to pass an order within a period of 45 days from the receipt of a certified copy of the High Court's judgment. Furthermore, the High Court ordered that until the adjudication of the stay application, any contemplated coercive measures or demand raised by the revenue would be kept in abeyance. No specific issue regarding the assessment itself was decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Edathirrinji Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a primary agricultural credit society. It was aggrieved by an assessment order dated 22.12.2018 for assessment year 2016-17. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed by an order dated 05.02.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ernakulam, along with a stay application dated 14.03.2020. These were pending consideration. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking directions for the ITAT to consider the stay application within a timeframe, apprehending coercive steps.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to consider the pending stay application within a specific timeframe? (Question of procedure and administrative direction) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that its appeal and stay application before the ITAT were pending. However, there was a threat of coercive steps. Therefore, the petitioner sought directions from the High Court for the ITAT to consider the stay application expeditiously and within a time frame. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Revenue) submitted that if the High Court issued any directions to the ITAT, it might face difficulties in deciding applications due to numerous appeals pending 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.8440 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: THE EDATHIRINJI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.R-137, EDATHIRINJI.P.O, THRISSUR-680122, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.K.SURESH BABU, AGED 57, S/O.KOCHURAMAN BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680001 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 18.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2 WP(C).No.8440 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 22.12.2018 Ext.P1 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax having juri iction. The aforementioned appeal, vide order dated 05.02.2020 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 14.03.2020 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.8440 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.8440 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 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 →