KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3259 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/28039/2019HC KeralaKLHC01072924201923 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, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed 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 a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the ITAT for further action. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the procedural steps to be taken.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kundayam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging a rectified order for assessment year 2015-2016. The petitioner had filed an appeal and a stay petition before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). However, the petitioner alleged that recovery steps were being initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition was considered by the ITAT. The writ petition sought directions from the High Court regarding the pending appeal and stay petition before the ITAT and the ongoing recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) should be directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P5) within a specified period, and if so, what should that period be? 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectified order (Ext.P3) should be kept in abeyance until the ITAT passes orders on the stay petition? Assessee's Arguments: The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being taken prematurely, before the ITAT had an opportunity to decide on their stay petition. They sought intervention from the High Court to ensure their appeal and stay petition are considered promptly and to halt recovery actions during this period. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the court's directions imply that the revenue was pursuing recovery actions.

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.28039 OF 2019(D) PETITIONER: KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3259 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNDAYAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-689 695. 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, IST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030. BY ADV.SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC 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.28039 OF 2019(D) 2

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P3 rectified order under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-2016, 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 WP(C).No.28039 OF 2019(D) 3 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

WP(C).No.28039 OF 2019(D) 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 21.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2018 IN ITA NO.187/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.187/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 5.10.2019, 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 5.10.2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →