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

WP(C)/2935/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008285202003 February 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 consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P-3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P-2) without undue delay, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that until such orders are 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 on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of expediting the decision on the stay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Punnathala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging coercive recovery proceedings initiated by the assessing authority. The bank had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P-2) and a stay petition (Ext.P-3) against an order (Ext.P-1). The grievance was that despite the pending stay petition, recovery actions were being pursued. The respondents were the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The case was heard on February 3, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should expedite the decision on the stay application filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated while their stay petition was pending before the appellate authority. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, was heard by the Court. No specific arguments from either side regarding the merits of the appeal or the stay application were recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

W.P.(C). No. 2935 of 2020 ..1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 14TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2935 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: PUNNATHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THIRUMULLAVARAM, PUNNATHALA, KOLLAM-691 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/AUTHORISED PERSON OF PUNNATHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) 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 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM-691 001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TAX TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 2935 of 2020 ..2.. ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2935 of 2020 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2020

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P-1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P-2 appeal and Ext.P-3 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 Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing 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.P-3 stay application filed in Ext.P-2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through ..3.. authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks 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. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG ..4..

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM PENDING BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.5213/201 DATED 11.02.2016 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →