THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6835/2020HC KeralaKLHC01018167202006 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while noting that it ought not to have interfered, disposed of the writ petition in the interest of justice. The Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the application for stay (Ext.P3) filed along with the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with law. This decision was to be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also stated that if any demand is raised, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that while writ petitions for expediting appeals are generally discouraged, the High Court can direct the appellate authority to decide pending applications, including stay applications, within a stipulated time, ensuring due process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of their appeal and interim application. The appeal was preferred against an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Trivandrum. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was the appellate authority. The petitioner sought a direction to the appellate authority to decide their application for stay, which was filed along with the appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal and an interim application for stay before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction for the disposal of an appeal and interim application pending before the appellate authority, and if so, what direction should be issued? (Question of procedure and administrative oversight, turning on the inherent powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of their pending appeal and interim application for stay. The petitioner relied on the general principle of seeking timely redressal from statutory authorities. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the revenue. The standing counsel for the revenue was present, but their arguments are not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP(C).No.6835 OF 2020(D) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6835 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD, PUTHENCHANTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V.S.RAMESH. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR SMT. ARYA ANIL SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM - 695003. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6835 OF 2020(D) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal and interim application preferred against the assessment order issued by the second respondent - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2.

Though this Court ought not to have interfered, but in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application for stay filed along with Ext.P2 appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case any demand is raised, petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.6835 OF 2020(D) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26/12/2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y.2017-

18.

EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →