PALODE SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 792 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2474/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007145202029 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until such orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3) for enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the impugned order or the stay application itself, but ensured that the petitioner's right to have the stay application considered was protected.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Palode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an order (Ext.P1) passed by an authority. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) against this order. While the stay petition was pending, the assessing authority issued a demand notice (Ext.P3) for recovery of disputed amounts related to the impugned order. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking relief against the issuance of the demand notice during the pendency of their stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of a demand notice for recovery of disputed amounts is permissible while a stay petition is pending before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that the demand notice (Ext.P3) was issued prematurely and in contravention of the principles of natural justice, as it sought to enforce the impugned order (Ext.P1) while a stay petition (Ext.P4) was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner contended that coercive steps should be held in abeyance until the stay petition is decided. The revenue did not record any specific arguments 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2474 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER: PALODE SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 792 NO.792,CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING, PALODE, KARIMANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695562, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REKHA.V.O BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP 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(3), AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695003 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. ADV. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.2474 OF 2020(H) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2474 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 29th 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 WP(C).No.2474 OF 2020(H) 3 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

WP(C).No.2474 OF 2020(H) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AABAT9742J DATED 16-12-2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. PAN AABAT9742J/2017-18 DATED 16-12-2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 17.01.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT P2 APPEAL.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →