NANNIYODE SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1161, vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2456/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007159202029 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 in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Court ordered that the Commissioner should afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass orders on the stay application without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. 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. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, as the primary focus was on directing the appellate authority to decide the pending application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nanniyode Service Co Operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from an order (Ext.P1) against which they had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P4). While the stay petition was pending, the assessing authority issued a demand notice (Ext.P3) for the recovery of disputed amounts related to the impugned order. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to prevent coercive steps for recovery until the stay petition was decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to expedite the decision on the stay application filed by the petitioner? 2. Whether coercive steps for recovery of disputed amounts should be stayed until the stay application is decided? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that a demand notice was issued for recovery of disputed amounts while their stay petition was pending before the appellate authority. They sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and a stay on coercive recovery measures. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the respondents were represented by their learned standing counsel, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

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 ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2456 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: NANNIYODE SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1161, MANNIYODE, PACHA.P.O., MEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 562, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LATHA KUMARY.P. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, 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(3), AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. ADV. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.2456 OF 2020(F) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2456 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 29th 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.

2.

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

3.

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 WP(C).No.2456 OF 2020(F) 3 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

WP(C).No.2456 OF 2020(F) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AABAN1911B DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11.1.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.PAN AABAN1911B/2017-18 DATED 11.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 11.1.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P2 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →