THE NEDUNGOLAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 583 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/2334/2020HC KeralaKLHC01006491202028 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P5) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Ext.P4) without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned assessment order will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the process. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nedungolam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P4) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) against an assessment order (Ext.P2). The petitioner's grievance is that the assessing authority initiated coercive recovery proceedings for disputed amounts while the stay petition was pending. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary, and the respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Kollam.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of recovery proceedings pending the disposal of their appeal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contends that coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated despite the pendency of their stay application, causing prejudice. They rely on the general principle that recovery should be stayed pending appeal, especially when a stay petition is under consideration. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay petition or the appeal itself.

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 TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2334 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: THE NEDUNGOLAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 583 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHATHANOOR, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., KOLLAM-671334. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM (ASSESSING OFFICER), O/O THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.4, KOLLAM-691001. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.2334 OF 2020(N) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2334 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 28th day of January 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P5 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.P.C.Sasidharan, 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 1 st respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P5 stay application filed in Ext.P4 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months 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.

WP(C).No.2334 OF 2020(N) 3 With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS Nsd //// Pa to Judge JUDGE

WP(C).No.2334 OF 2020(N) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 07.12.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 06.01.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15.01.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →