ERAMALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2641/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007419202030 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 in the appeal (Ext.P2) and pass orders on it without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for the enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the appellate authority. The principle is that appellate authorities should dispose of stay petitions promptly, and coercive recovery should be deferred pending such disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Eramala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (respondent 2). The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 3). 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 filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking relief.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appellate and stay petition proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by issuing a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a demand notice was issued for recovery of disputed amounts while their stay petition was pending before the appellate authority, causing prejudice. They sought a direction for the speedy disposal of the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

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 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 10TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2641 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER: ERAMALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. F 1044, MAIN ROAD, ORKKATTERI, KOZHIKODE - 673542, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VINODAN T. K. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU 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 OFFICER WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SOUTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 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.2641 of 2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2641 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.AAAAT7252Q DATED 17.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 7.1.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.PAN AAAAT7252Q/2017-18 DATED 17.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 7.1.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT. P2 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →