THE MAYYANAD REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/27437/2019HC KeralaKLHC01071380201916 October 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed that if the petitioner files an appeal along with a stay petition before the Appellate Tribunal within one month from the date of the judgment, the Appellate Tribunal shall consider the stay application within two months of its receipt. Recovery steps pursuant to the demand notice were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the Appellate Tribunal considers and passes orders on the stay petition and communicates the same to the petitioner. The court clarified that failure to file the appeal and stay petition within the stipulated time would result in the loss of this benefit. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the respondents and the Appellate Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank Limited, is challenging assessment orders for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17 (Exts.P2 and P3). Appeals filed before the First Appellate Authority were dismissed by orders dated 29.07.2019 (Exts.P4 and P5). Subsequently, a demand notice (Ext.P6) was issued for recovery of the confirmed amounts. The petitioner's primary request is for a direction to the respondents to halt recovery proceedings until they can file an appeal and a stay petition before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider their stay application within a specified timeframe, and for recovery steps to be kept in abeyance until such consideration. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, The Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank Limited, seeks a temporary reprieve from recovery actions to enable them to pursue their statutory right of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. They are requesting a direction to the respondents to refrain from recovery until the Tribunal has had an opportunity to decide their stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments or contentions made by the revenue (Income Tax Officer and Income Tax Appellate Authority) beyond their representation through the learned Standing Counsel. However, the court's order implies that the revenue would be bound by the directions issued.

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 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/24TH ASWINA, 1941 W.P(C).No.27437 OF 2019(D) PETITIONER: THE MAYYANAD REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED MAYYANAD BANK BUILDING, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM-691303, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.4 RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KARABALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM-691001 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, IT DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.27437/2019 : 2 :

J U D G M E N T Against Exts.P2 and P3 assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17, the petitioner has preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority, but the same were dismissed by Exts.P4 and P5 orders. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P6 demand notice was served on the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the Appellate Authority. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to refrain from pursuing recovery steps till such time as the petitioner prefers an appeal and stay petition before the Appellate Tribunal as permitted by the Statute.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I direct that if the petitioner prefers an appeal along with a stay petition before the W.P.(C).No.27437/2019 : 3 : Appellate Tribunal within one month from today, then the Appellate Tribunal shall proceed to consider the stay application preferred by the petitioner within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner. I make it clear that recovery steps, pursuant to Ext.P6 demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the Appellate Tribunal considers and passes orders on the stay petition to be preferred by the petitioner and the said order is communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not file the appeal and stay petition within the time granted in this judgment, he will lose the benefit of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the respondents and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/15/10/19

W.P.(C).No.27437/2019 : 4 :

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 12.02.1957. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 26.12.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER DATED 05.09.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER DATED 05.09.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 01.10.2019. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL DATED 03.09.2018 IN ITA NO.98/COCH/2017. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →