THE KUMARAMPUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 373, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5675/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015090202009 March 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 demand/attachment proceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act had been initiated, the Court disposed of the writ petition. It directed the ITAT (the 3rd respondent) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the ITAT to adjudicate upon it.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kumaramputhur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order of assessment (Ext.P1) and an appellate order (Ext.P2). Against these orders, a second appeal was preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (Ext.P3), along with an interim application (Ext.P4) seeking to keep coercive measures in abeyance. The Revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner's remedy was to press 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 a statutory remedy of pressing a stay application before the ITAT is available. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, The Kumaramputhur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking to keep coercive measures in abeyance pending the disposal of its second appeal before the ITAT. The petitioner had filed an interim application for stay before the ITAT. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the writ petition would not lie, and the petitioner's remedy was to press the pending stay application before the ITAT.

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 MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5675 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER: THE KUMARAMPUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 373, MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678583, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN- CHARGE, N.KRISHNADAS, AGED 57, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, 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, REPESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5675 OF 2020(H) 2

JUDGMENT 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 12.02.2020, till such time, the contemplated coercive measures against the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.

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 apprised 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 with a direction to 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on WP(C).No.5675 OF 2020(H) 3 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 nak JUDGE

WP(C).No.5675 OF 2020(H) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 20.12.2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 10.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2014-15 DATED 12.02.2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2020. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →