THE PATTIKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P.455 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/748/2020HC KeralaKLHC01002266202013 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], held that the insistence on payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in such cases. The Court directed the 1st appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the final disposal of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather the procedural aspects concerning its disposal and interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pattikkad Service Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider their appeal on its merits and to restrain the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings until the appeal was decided. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against an assessment order. The Income Tax Officer, Ward (4), Tirur, is the other respondent. The writ petition was filed on January 13, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to consider the petitioner's statutory appeal on its merits? (Question of law and procedure) 2. Whether coercive proceedings for recovery of the impugned tax should be stayed until the disposal of the appeal? (Question of law and procedure) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner, represented by its counsel, sought a direction for the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits and for a stay on coercive recovery proceedings pending the appeal's disposal. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. Revenue's Contentions: The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appeared. No specific arguments for the revenue were 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 MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 23RD POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.748 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: THE PATTIKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P.455 PATTIKKAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679 325, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR-676 001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)N0.748/2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 748 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT The main prayer in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: “1) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal on merit and also restraining the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings against the petitioner society till orders are passed in Ext.P2 appeal on merit.”

2.

Heard Sri. O.D. Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents.

3.

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has taken the view that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded, as a condition for grant of stay, need not be insisted in cases as in the instant one and that the Division Bench, for reasons stated therein, has ordered that it is for the appellate authority to take a decision on the statutory appeal at the earliest and that until the final decision is rendered by the appellate authority in the statutory appeal, coercive steps for recovery and W.P.(C)N0.748/2020 3 collection of the impugned tax shall be kept in abeyance in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has also dealt with the reasons for taking such a view for making such an interim arrangement pending disposal of the main appeal by the statutory appellate authority concerned. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has been followed by this Court in a series of other cases as in the judgment dated 10.1.2020 in W.P.(C).No.523/2020. Accordingly, following the line of directions and orders already passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 as well as various other judgments rendered by this Court, following the said directions and orders of the Division Bench in the matter of the interim arrangement till the disposal of the main statutory appeal, etc., following orders and directions are issued: It is ordered that the 1st appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P-2 appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay and within a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by the said appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that until final

W.P.(C)N0.748/2020 4 orders are passed disposing of Ext.P-2 appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the abovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd

W.P.(C)N0.748/2020 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →