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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2650/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007479202030 January 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 take up the stay application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Ext.P2). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on this application without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for enforcing the impugned order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The issue of the merits of the appeal itself was not decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muttathara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) against this order. While the stay petition was pending, the petitioner received a demand notice (Ext.P3) from the assessing authority for the recovery of disputed amounts related to the impugned order. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking intervention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Ext.P2) against the order of the Income Tax Officer. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a demand notice (Ext.P3) was issued for recovery of disputed amounts while their stay petition (Ext.P4) was pending before the appellate authority. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.2650 OF 2020
TC 42/94

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 10TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2650 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER: MUTTATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. TC 42/942(1), MUTTATHARA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY S.BEENA. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFIER, WARD 2(1), AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) No.2650 of 2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2650 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, Ext.P3 demand notice has been issued for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

2.

Heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

3.

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.P4 stay application filed in Ext.P2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on that application without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid Ext.P4 stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P3 demand notice for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AAAAM7055N DATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.PAN AAAAM7055N/2017-18 DATED 18.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 21.01.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P2 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →