THE SHOLAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. P. 1169 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6437/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016990202004 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 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 statutory remedies are available, the court can direct expeditious disposal of pending applications within the statutory framework, especially in the absence of immediate coercive action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Sholayur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment order (Ext.P1) and appellate order (Ext.P2). They had preferred a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and filed 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 there were no pleadings regarding steps for taking possession or initiation of demand or attachment proceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a stay application is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)? (Question of law) The assessee argued that they had filed a second appeal before the ITAT along with an interim application to prevent coercive measures. The revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, and the assessee's proper recourse was to pursue the pending stay application before the ITAT. The High Court did not record any specific arguments from the assessee regarding the maintainability of the writ petition itself, focusing instead on 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6437 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: THE SHOLAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. P. 1169, KOTTATHARA.P.O, ATTAPPADI, MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD-678581, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SANAL PAUL,AGED 38,S/O N.V.PAUL. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4,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. R1 TO R3 BY SC SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6437 OF 2020 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 4th day of March 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 23rd January 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 WP(C).No.6437 OF 2020 3 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 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 JUDGE uu 07.03.2020

WP(C).No.6437 OF 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2012-13 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →