THE ELAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.F.1536, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/523/2020HC KeralaKLHC01001646202010 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 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], ordered that the 1st respondent (appellate authority) shall ensure the final disposal of Ext.P2 appeal without undue delay, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court directed that until final orders are passed on Ext.P2, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court found that the insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in such cases. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Elamkulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider its appeal on merits and to restrain the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings until the appeal was decided. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the 1st respondent against an order passed by the 2nd respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The writ petition was filed in January 2020. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel and the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) on its merits? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether coercive proceedings for the recovery of the impugned tax should be restrained until the appeal is decided? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits and to stay coercive recovery proceedings pending the appeal's disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appeared, but their specific contentions are not detailed. However, the court's order implies a consideration of the revenue's position in relation to the stay and the appellate process.

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 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.523 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: THE ELAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.F.1536, KUNNAKKAVU.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR-676001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.523 OF 2020(M) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 523 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “1) 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 restrianing the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings against the petitioner society till orders are passed in Ext.P2 appeal on merit. 2) Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable court just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2.

Heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner society and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Government of India, 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 WP(C).No.523 OF 2020(M) 3 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. 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 respondent 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 SKS

WP(C).No.523 OF 2020(M) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 191.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →