THE AVANEESWARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/28412/2019HC KeralaKLHC01074124201925 October 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. Firstly, the third respondent (ITAT) 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 against the petitioner by the rectified order (Ext.P3) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the ITAT as directed and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the ITAT for further action. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the ITAT to proceed with the adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Avaneeswaram Service Co-operative Bank Limited, has filed a writ petition challenging a rectified order under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has preferred an appeal and a stay petition before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the third respondent. The petitioner contends that recovery steps are being taken by the respondents for the amounts confirmed by the rectified order, even before the stay petition is considered. The writ petition seeks directions from the High Court regarding the consideration of the stay petition and the recovery steps.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 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 rectified order should be kept in abeyance until the ITAT passes orders on the stay petition? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that recovery steps are being initiated prematurely, even before the stay petition is adjudicated by the ITAT. They seek a directive for the ITAT to consider their stay petition expeditiously and to halt recovery proceedings in the interim. 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 FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28412 OF 2019(B) PETITIONER: THE AVANEESWARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 1847, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNICODE P.O. PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 508. 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 691 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 3 THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO. CI AND C2, IST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030. BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No.28412 of 2019 2

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P3 rectified 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 rectified order.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel 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 shall 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 rectified 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.

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 mns

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 05.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2018 IN ITA NO. 165/EF/KLM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 IN ITA NO. 165/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 FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT. P4 APPEAL DATED 14.10.2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE W.P(C).No.28412 of 2019 5

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →