M/S.KIDANGOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6043/2016HC KeralaKLHC01053467201617 February 2016Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the appellate order (Ext.P8). Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the first appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P8 order, was dismissed. However, to allow the petitioner time to approach the appellate Tribunal, the Court directed that if an appeal is filed on or before March 20, 2016, the Tribunal shall consider and pass orders on the appeal on merits after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for amounts confirmed by Ext.P8 were to be kept in abeyance until March 20, 2016.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kidangoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order (Ext.P8) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent. This order was in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Kottayam, the second respondent. The petitioner raised various contentions against the appellate order. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an appellate order under the Income Tax Act when an effective alternative remedy of appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is available? The petitioner, in its writ petition, raised various contentions against the appellate order (Ext.P8). However, the judgment does not explicitly detail these contentions or the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act they relate to. The primary issue before the High Court was whether to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The revenue, through its counsel, did not present specific arguments on the merits of the petitioner's case but was represented in the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 6043 of 2016

WP(C).NO.35535/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/28TH MAGHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 6043 of 2016 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- THE KIDANGOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3431, KIDANGOOR P.O., KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 6043 of 2016 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P-1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P-2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-3: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.04.2015 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-4: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 20.04.2015 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-5: COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 23.08.2014 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN IA NO.2573 OF 2014 IN ITA NO.198 OF 2014. EXT.P-6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-7: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C).NO.35535/2015 DATED 24.11.2015 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P-8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.6043 Of 2016 ............................................................. Dated this the 17th day of February, 2016

J U D G M E N T

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 appellate order passed by the 1st respondent in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order of assessment under the Income Tax Act. Although various contentions are raised in the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P8 order, I am of the view that against Ext.P8 order, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the income tax appellate Tribunal. I do not see any reason to interfere with Ext.P8 first appellate order in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P8 order fails and dismissed. Taking note of the plea of the petitioner that he would require some time to prefer an appeal before the appellate Tribunal. I make it clear that, if the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P8 order on or before 20.03.2016, then the appellate

-2- W.P.(C). No.6043 of 2016 Tribunal shall consider and pass orders on the appeal on merits and after hearing the petitioner. The recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P8 order shall be kept in abeyance till 20.03.2016, so as to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/17.02.16

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →