THE PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1801 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/28072/2019HC KeralaKLHC01072945201923 October 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 (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 a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Secondly, coercive steps pursuant to the recovery notices (Exts.P6, P7, and P8) for amounts confirmed by the rectified order (Ext.P3) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 3rd respondent for further action. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging a rectified order for assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner had filed an appeal and a stay petition before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the 3rd respondent. However, the petitioner alleged that coercive steps for recovery of tax and penalty were initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition was considered. The notices indicating these coercive steps were marked as Exts.P6, P7, and P8.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) should consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petition (Ext.P5) filed by the petitioner within a stipulated period, and if so, what should that period be? The petitioner argued for a prompt consideration of their stay petition. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether coercive steps for recovery of amounts confirmed by the rectified order (Ext.P3) should be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is decided by the ITAT? The petitioner contended that recovery actions were premature. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28072 OF 2019(H) PETITIONER: THE PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1801 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVUR.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691301 BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARABALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM-PIN-691001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695003. 3 THE REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.C1 AND C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030 BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.28072 OF 2019(H) 2

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P3 rectified order under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-2018, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P5 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. Exts.P6, P7 and P8 are the notices issued to the petitioner indicating the coercive steps taken by the respondents for recovery of the tax and penalty. 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.

2.

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:

1.

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.

2.

Coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P6, P7 and P8 notices for recovery of amounts confirmed against

WP(C).No.28072 OF 2019(H) 3 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.

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 mns

WP(C).No.28072 OF 2019(H) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 15.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2018 IN ITA NO.242/KLM/KLM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2019 IN ITA NO.242/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 AND CHELAN DATED 14.10.2019, 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 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 271 (1((C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →