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

WP(C)/2324/2020HC KeralaKLHC01006662202028 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay application (Ext.P5) filed in the appeal (Ext.P3). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned assessment order would be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order itself, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of ensuring a timely decision on the stay petition and preventing immediate recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ooruttambalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P2) passed by the Income Tax Officer. The bank filed an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) against this order. Subsequently, a demand notice (Ext.P4) was issued to enforce the assessment order. The petitioner's primary grievance is that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated for the disputed amounts while the stay petition was pending. The matter was brought before the High Court of Kerala through a Writ Petition (Civil).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appellate and stay proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by directing the expeditious disposal of the stay application and a stay on coercive recovery. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated prematurely, while their stay petition was still pending before the appellate authority. They sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of the stay application and a stay on further recovery actions until the stay application is decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or contentions of the revenue are detailed 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 TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2324 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER: OORUTTAMBALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.T-916, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 507, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SYAMJI.S.L. 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-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 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.2324 OF 2020(M) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2324 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 28th day of January 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition. In the meanwhile, Exts.P4 demand notice was made for enforcing the impugned Ext.P2 assessment order. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petitions, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

Heard Dr.K.P. Pradeep, 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 3rd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P5 stay application filed in Ext.P3 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,

WP(C).No.2324 OF 2020(M) 3 further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS Nsd //// PA to Judge JUDGE

WP(C).No.2324 OF 2020(M) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME DATED 16.02.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 IN PAN AAAAO1130G. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AAAAO1130G DATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.PAN AAAAO1130G/2017-18 DATED 18.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 17.01.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P3 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →