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

WP(C)/2483/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007164202029 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 consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P4) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until 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) will be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide the merits of the impugned order or the stay application itself, but rather directed the expeditious disposal of the pending stay petition. The principle is that appellate remedies should be pursued and interim relief should be granted to maintain the status quo until the appellate authority decides on the interim application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mallappally Service Co Operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an order (Ext.P1). The petitioner has 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 before the High Court of Kerala seeking relief against the issuance of the demand notice during the pendency of their stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene to prevent coercive recovery steps when a stay petition is pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner's contention is that the demand notice (Ext.P3) for recovery of disputed amounts was issued during the pendency of their stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). They seek to prevent further coercive steps until their stay application is decided. The revenue's contention, as represented by the standing counsel, is not explicitly recorded in terms of arguments presented. However, the court heard both sides.

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.2483 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER: MALLAPPALLY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.A.155, KEEZHVAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA, 689587 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SANALKUMAR.P.V 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, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX THIRUVALLA, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA, KOTTAYAM-689101 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOTTAYAM, AYYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686601 ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, 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.2483 OF 2020(I) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2483 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.

Heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, 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.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.2483 OF 2020(I) 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.2483 OF 2020(I) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AAAAT5956D/2017-18 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. PAN AAAAT5956D/2017-18 DATED 30.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 22.01.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT. P2 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →