PANAYAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.C 46, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2206/2020HC KeralaKLHC01006325202027 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], held that insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be enforced in such cases. The court directed the 1st appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Crucially, the court ordered that all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance until the final disposal of the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Panayal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought to quash a proceeding (Ext.P3) issued by the Income Tax Officer (2nd respondent) and to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent) to consider the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) on its merits. The petitioner also sought to restrain the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings until the appeal was decided. The petition was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should quash the proceeding issued by the Income Tax Officer (Ext.P3) and direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the appeal (Ext.P2) on its merits, while restraining coercive recovery proceedings until the appeal is decided. The petitioner, through its counsel, sought the aforementioned reliefs. The revenue, represented by its Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The court's decision was based on previous judgments of the High Court of Kerala.

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 MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2206 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: PANAYAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.C 46, PANAYAL VILLAGE, PANAYAL P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671318, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (2), KASARAGOD -671121. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM- SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.2206/2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2206 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “1) Call for records leading to Ext.P3 proceeding issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal on merit and also restraining the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings against the petitioner society till orders are passed in Ext.P2 appeal on merit.”

2.

Heard Sri. O.D. Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents.

3.

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has taken the view that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded, as a condition for grant of stay, need not be insisted in cases as in the instant one and that the Division Bench, for reasons stated therein, has ordered that it is for the appellate authority to take a decision on the statutory appeal at the earliest and that until the final decision is rendered by the appellate authority in the statutory appeal, coercive steps for recovery and collection of the impugned tax shall be kept in abeyance in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has also dealt with the reasons for taking such a view for making such an interim arrangement pending disposal of the main appeal by the statutory appellate authority concerned. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has been followed by this Court in a series of other cases as in the judgment dated 10.1.2020 in W.P.(C).No.523/2020. Accordingly, following the line of directions and orders already passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 as well as various other judgments rendered by this Court, following the said directions and orders of the Division Bench in the matter of the interim arrangement till the disposal of the main statutory appeal, etc., following orders and directions are issued: It is ordered that the 1st appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P-2 appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay and within a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by the said appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P-2 appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the abovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 18.01.20 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 27.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEMANDING THE DISPUTED TAX.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →