M/S.KARAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/1748/2020HC KeralaKLHC01005028202027 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to take up the stay application (Ext.P5(a)) filed in the appeal (Ext.P5) without much delay. The Tribunal was instructed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the authorized officer of the department before passing a considered decision on the stay application, preferably within a period of 2 to 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further steps for enforcement of the orders impugned in the appeal were to be kept in abeyance by the respondent officer. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Karakulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1). They filed a first appeal, resulting in a first appellate order (Ext.P2) and a modified assessment order (Ext.P3). Further aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal which was rejected by Ext.P4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P5) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, along with a stay application (Ext.P5(a)). The petitioner apprehended enforcement steps for the impugned orders while their appeal and stay application were pending before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should expedite the decision on the stay application (Ext.P5(a)) filed in the pending appeal (Ext.P5)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner apprehends enforcement of impugned orders while their appeal and stay application are pending before the ITAT and seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay application. Revenue's contention: No specific contention is recorded in the judgment for the revenue regarding the stay application or the writ petition.

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 ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1748 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: M/S.KARAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KP-1/382,KARAKULAM.P.O,NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695564,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SHRI.K.PADMAKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), 2ND FLOOR,AAYAKAR BHAVAN,KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,1ST FLOOR,(BLOCK C-1 AND C-II),KENDRIYA BHAVAN,OPP.CSEZ,KAKKANAD,COCHIN-682037. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 1748 of 2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ======================= W.P.(C). No. 1748 of 2020 ======================= Dated this the 27th day of January, 2020

J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred first appeal before the Appellate Authority concerned which is in Ext.P2 first appellate order and Ext.P3 modified order of the assessment pursuant to Ext.P2 first appellate order. Being aggrieved by Ext.P3 modified order made by the Assessing Officer in perpetual tune with Ext.P2 first appellate order, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal to impugned Ext.P3 modified order, which has now rejecting as per Ext.P4 order. Now being aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P5 appeal before the 3rd respondent, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench along with Ext. P5(a) stay application. Petitioner apprehends that due to the pendency of Ext.P5 appeal and Ext.p5 (a) stay application before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, steps have been taken for enforcement of impugned orders impugned in Ext.P5 appeal and Ext. P5(a) stay application.

Taking note of the said limited grievance, it is ordered in the interest of justice that 3rd respondent, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may take up the matter in Ext.P5(a) stay application filed in Ext.P5 appeal without much delay and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Authorized Officer of the department they regular consent decision on Ext.P5(a) stay application without much delay preferably within a period of 2 to 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of judgment. Until orders are passed on Ext. P5(a) stay application by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, further steps for enforcement of the orders impugned in Ext.P5 appeal shall be kept in abeyance for the respondent Officer concerned. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

( ) ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE LU

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASST.ORDER DATED 6.12.2017 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN I.T.A.NO.142/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 27.11.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MODIFIED ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.T.A.NO.630/EF/CIT(A)/TVM/2018-19 DATED 16.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 6.2.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 2.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12.03.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.49/C/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER DATED 4.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // True Copy // PA to Judge

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →