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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3273/2020HC KeralaKLHC01009356202006 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in similar circumstances. The Court directed the first appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeals (Exhibits P4 to P6) without much delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of these appeals, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeals themselves, focusing solely on the interim arrangement.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Palakkad 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 and pass orders on their appeals (Exhibits P4 to P6) without insisting on any deposit as a pre-condition for stay of demand. The demands arose from assessment orders (Exhibits P1 to P3) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner also sought a direction restraining the respondents from recovering the amounts under the assessment orders pending disposal of their appeals. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of appeals before the first appellate authority and the present writ petition challenging the insistence on deposit for stay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded as a condition for grant of stay of demand by the appellate authority is justified, and if not, what is the appropriate interim arrangement pending disposal of the statutory appeals? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the insistence on deposit as a pre-condition for stay of demand should not be made, and recovery proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of their appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the context implies the revenue's stance would be in support of the assessment orders and potentially the conditions for stay.

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 THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947 WP(C).No.3273 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER: PALAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., F-1200, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.C.RAMESH KUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANIL KUMAR SRI.G.MINI SRI.P.S.SREEPRASAD SRI.JOB ABRAHAM SRI.AJAY V ANAND RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680001. 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.3273/2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3273 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2020

JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “A. Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders in Exhibit P4 to P6 appeals without insisting for any deposit as a pre-condition for stay of demand under Exhibit P1 to P3 assessment orders. B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from recovering the amounts under Exhibit P1 to P3 assessment orders through revenue recovery proceedings or in any other manner known to law pending disposal of Exhibit P4 to P6 appeals .”

2.

Heard Sri.A.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, 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 Exts.P-4 to P-6 appeals 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-4 to P-6 appeals, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the abovesaid appeals 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 EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 DATED 19.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 DATED 19.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DATED 19.12.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 DATED 13.1.2020 (RELEVANT PAGES). EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 DATED 13.1.2020 (RELEVANT PAGES). EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DATED 13.1.2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 DATED 13.11.2020. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 DATED 13.1.2020. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DATED 13.1.2020. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 1529/2019 DATED 1.7.2019. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.2.2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.2.2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.2.2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →