THE URUKUNNU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.Q 190 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4,

WP(C)/29573/2019HC KeralaKLHC01076946201905 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. Firstly, the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) was directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P5) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Secondly, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectification order (Ext.P3) were to be kept in abeyance until such time as orders were passed by the 3rd respondent on the stay petition and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 3rd respondent for further action. The High Court did not decide the merits of the rectification order or the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Urukunnu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, filed an appeal (Ext.P4) along with a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) against a rectification order (Ext.P3). The petitioner contended that despite filing the appeal and stay petition, recovery steps were being initiated by the respondents for the amounts confirmed by the rectification order, even before the stay petition was considered. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions regarding the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectification order should be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is decided. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being pursued prematurely, even before the stay petition was adjudicated by the Tribunal. They sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and a stay on recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue.

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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.29573 OF 2019(V) PETITIONER: THE URUKUNNU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.Q 190 REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, URUKUNNU.P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691 329. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM,PIN-691 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695 003. 3 THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.C1 AND C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030. OTHER PRESENT: SC, CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.29573 OF 2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P3 rectification order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P5 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P3 rectification order

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

The 3rd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P5 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 rectification order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

WP(C).No.29573 OF 2019 3

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.29573 OF 2019 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 21.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 10.12.2018 IN ITA NO 166/EF/KLM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18, OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2019 IN ITA NO 166/EF/KLM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.10.2019 AND CHELAN EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT P4 APPEAL DATED 14.10.2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →