M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/40456/2018HC KeralaKLHC01093822201812 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had filed its appeal and stay petition on time. The Court recognized that procedural fairness requires the revenue authorities to await the appellate authority's decision on the stay petition before taking any further steps. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to defer coercive steps until the ITAT considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the ITAT would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal itself, as the writ petition was focused on procedural aspects.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (KASCARD), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. KASCARD had challenged certain orders (Exts. P5 and P6) and a demand notice (Ext. P7) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. KASCARD also filed a stay petition along with its appeal. The grievance in the writ petition was that the revenue authorities were initiating coercive steps against KASCARD before the ITAT could decide on the stay petition. The writ petition was filed to prevent these coercive actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities can initiate coercive steps against the assessee while a stay petition is pending before the appellate authority (ITAT)? (Question of procedure and fairness) The assessee contended that it had availed of its statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition within the prescribed time. It argued that procedural fairness dictates that coercive steps should be withheld until the appellate authority has had an opportunity to rule on the stay petition. The assessee sought to prevent immediate recovery actions by the revenue. The revenue's contentions were not recorded 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 40456 of 2018 PETITIONER: M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD KASCARD BUILDING, PB NO.56, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.E DEVADASAN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JACOB RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695003. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003. 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003. 4 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I AND C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682037. SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 40456 of 2018 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Co-Operative Society registered under the Kerala State Societies Act, questioned the Exts.P5 and P6 orders and Ext.P7 demand notice, before the 4th respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 4th respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 4th respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

WP(C).No. 40456 of 2018 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE RELATING TO AY 2012-13 DATED 24.2.2015. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE RELATING TO AY 2014-15 DATED 20.10.2016. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 8.11.2018. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 8.11.2018. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT (A) FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 7.12.2018. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 7.12.2018. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7.12.2018. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH (ITAT) FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 11.12.2018. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE ITAT FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 11.12.2018. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX FILED WITH THE ITAT FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 11.12.2018. EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX FILED WITH THE ITAT FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 11.12.2018. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →