PUNALUR PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO. Q 1644 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8628/2020HC KeralaKLHC01022087202018 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the appellate court (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The court also stipulated that an opportunity of being heard should be afforded to the petitioner in accordance with law. Crucially, the court ordered that the stay of demand, as per Ext.P7, would remain in effect only until the disposal of the stay application (Ext.P8) and not beyond that period. This means the stay on the demand is temporary, pending the appellate authority's decision on the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Punalur Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd, an income tax assessee, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought directions for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first appellate authority, to dispose of the appeal and a stay application in a time-bound manner. The assessee had filed an appeal against an assessment order dated December 7, 2019, and a stay application. Subsequently, the assessee received a communication from the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Kollam, directing the deposit of 20% of the disputed amount. The assessee expressed satisfaction if a direction was issued to the first respondent to consider their application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal and stay application filed by the petitioner in a time-bound manner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had filed an appeal and a stay application against the assessment order. They further submitted that they had received a demand for deposit of 20% of the amount and would be satisfied if the appellate authority was directed to consider their application for stay within a stipulated period. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the presence of the Income Tax Officer as a respondent implies the revenue's interest in the assessment and demand.

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 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8628 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: PUNALUR PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO. Q 1644 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY S. RATHIKUMAR, THALICODE P.O, PUNALUR 691 333 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.V.T.LITHA SMT.K.R.MONISHA SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB SHRI.ANTONY SAVIO RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM 691 001 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: WP(C).No.8628 OF 2020 -2-

JUDGMENT Petitioner, Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, an assessee of income tax, has approached this Court for appropriate directions to the 1st appellate court to dispose of the appeal and stay application Exts.P4 and P8 dated 26.12.2019 and 09.03.2020 in a time bound manner.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the assessment order dated 07.12.2019 Ext.P1, petitioner preferred an appeal Ext.P4 dated 26.12.2019 and also requested the assessing officer to stay the proceedings however had suppressed the fact that stay application Ext.P8 dated 09.03.2020 has been filed. In the meantime, the petitioner received a communication from 2nd respondent dated 04.03.2020 to deposit 20% of the amount. Petitioner would be satisfied in case there is WP(C).No.8628 OF 2020 -3- a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the appellate court to decide the application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in accordance with law. Till such time the stay of demand vide Ext.P7 is stayed. It is made clear that the stay is only till the disposal of the application for stay Ext.P8 and not beyond. For the aforementioned reasons this writ petition stands disposed of. AMIT RAWAL vv JUDGE

WP(C).No.8628 OF 2020 -4-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2017-18 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07-12-20219 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017- 2018 DATED 07-12-2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07-12-2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT RAGARDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DATED 26-12-2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNWLEDGMENT OF EXHIBIT P4 APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 26- 12-2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-01-2020 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20 1026078678(1) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04-03-2020 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OFSTAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09-03-2020 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →