MUTTATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

WP(C)/2583/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007468202030 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Ext.P2). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on this application without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for enforcing the impugned order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muttathara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an order (Ext.P1). Following this, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) against the impugned order. While the stay petition was pending, the assessing authority issued a demand notice (Ext.P3) for the recovery of disputed amounts, which is the petitioner's primary grievance. The respondents are the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The case came before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should expedite the decision on the stay application filed by the petitioner in their appeal against the impugned order. 2. Whether coercive steps for the recovery of disputed amounts should be stayed until a decision is rendered on the stay application. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that a demand notice has been issued for recovery of disputed amounts while their stay petition is pending before the appellate authority, causing prejudice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's side regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.2583 OF 2020

TC 42/94

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 ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 10TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2583 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER: MUTTATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. TC 42/942 (1), MUTTATHARA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY S BEENA BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 SRI CRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) No.2583 of 2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2583 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, Ext.P3 demand notice has been issued for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

Heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 3rd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P4 stay application filed in Ext.P2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on that application without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid Ext.P4 stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P3 demand notice for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AAAAM7055N DATED 18-12-2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21-01-2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.PAN AAAAM7055N/2012-13 DATED 18-12-19 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 21-01-2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT P2 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →