THE ALANALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE ANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5480/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014630202009 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 demand or attachment proceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act had been initiated, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the ITAT (3rd respondent) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The ratio is that while a writ petition may not be the primary remedy when a statutory forum is seized of a stay application, the Court can direct the statutory forum to expedite its decision, especially in the absence of immediate coercive steps.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Alanallur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., challenged assessment order (Ext.P1) and appellate order (Ext.P2) by filing a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (3rd respondent). Along with the appeal, an interim application (Ext.P4) dated 03.02.2020 was filed seeking to keep coercive measures against the petitioner in abeyance. The Revenue contended that a 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. Considering that no demand or attachment proceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act had been initiated, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.

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 to the petitioner? (Question of law, turning on the principles of alternative remedies). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the ITAT to consider their stay application, implying that the pendency of the stay application itself warranted judicial intervention to prevent potential coercive measures. Revenue's Contention: The writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of pursuing their pending stay application before the ITAT. The High Court should not interfere when the statutory forum is seized of the matter and has the power to grant the relief sought.

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.5480 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER: THE ALANALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE ANK LTD., NO.F 1178,ALANALLUR,MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678601,RPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,P.SREENIVASAN,AGED 47, S/O SANKARAN. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 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. 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.5480 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 03.02.2020, 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 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.5480 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.5480 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 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2013-14 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →