BALARAMAPURAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/1282/2020HC KeralaKLHC01003855202017 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P5) filed in the appeal (Ext.P3). The Commissioner was instructed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court ordered that until orders were passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order would be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the process. No issues were left undecided by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balaramapuram Service Co Operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner's grievance was that despite filing an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) against an order (Ext.P2), the assessing authority had initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The petitioner sought intervention from the court to prevent these recovery actions while their stay application was pending. The respondents were the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appellate and stay petition process by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the disposal of the stay application and to keep coercive recovery proceedings in abeyance until then. This is a question of mixed law and fact, concerning the court's supervisory jurisdiction over quasi-judicial authorities and the principles of natural justice, potentially touching upon the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding appeals and stay of demand. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings were being initiated prematurely, while their appeal and stay petition were still under consideration by the appellate authority. They sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application and a stay on recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that both sides were heard, but it does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments against the petitioner's prayer. However, the court's order suggests the revenue did not oppose the directions issued.

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 FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 27TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1282 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER: BALARAMAPURAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.T-14,BP7/623,VIZHINJAM ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.JAFFER KHAN BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU SMT.T.THASMI SMT.NANDINI R.S. 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 (20, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.1282 OF 2020(I) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 1282 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated 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 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.P5 stay application filed in Ext.P3 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance.

WP(C).No.1282 OF 2020(I) 3 With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS

WP(C).No.1282 OF 2020(I) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME DATED 18.03.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 I PAN AABAB5082D EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AABAB5082D DATED 12.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.12.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.PAN AABAB5082D/2017-18 DATED 12.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 26.12.2019 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P3 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →