THE MANICKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1910 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32064/2019HC KeralaKLHC01083478201916 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the amounts recovered from the petitioner's bank account had been re-credited as per its previous order. Consequently, the Court closed the writ petition. It directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court further clarified that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectification order would be kept in abeyance until the Appellate Authority passes its order and communicates it to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the Appellate Authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Manickal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the recovery actions initiated by the Income Tax authorities. These recovery steps were taken while the petitioner's appeal against an order confirming a demand was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner had also filed a stay petition. The High Court, on an earlier date, had directed the respondents to re-credit the amounts recovered from the petitioner's account with the 3rd respondent (The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd.). Counsel for the petitioner confirmed that these amounts have been re-credited.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax authorities were justified in initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner while an appeal and stay petition were pending before the Appellate Authority, concerning a demand confirmed by a rectification order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery actions were premature and improper given the pendency of their appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority. The petitioner sought an interim order to halt recovery and to have the already recovered amounts re-credited. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the propriety of recovery actions during the pendency of the appeal. However, their actions of initiating recovery suggest a stance that such actions were permissible.

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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 W.P(C).No.32064 OF 2019(G) PETITIONER: THE MANICKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1910 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIRAPPANCOE P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 607. BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, 1ST FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3 THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. R1-R2 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC R3 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SC THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. CO.OP BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.32064/2019 :: 2 ::

J U D G M E N T The petitioner had approached this Court aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent Income Tax authorities to recover amounts from the petitioner's bank account pending disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, before the 2nd respondent.

2.

When the matter came up for admission on 27.11.2019, this Court had, taking note of the fact that the recovery had been effected from the petitioner even while an appeal and stay petition had been filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority against the order confirming a demand against him, directed the respondents to forthwith re-credit the amounts recovered from the petitioner through its account from the 3rd respondent, into the said account. When the matter came up for orders today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the directions issued on 27.11.2019, the amounts have since been re-credited to the petitioner's bank account. Taking note of the said compliance by the respondents, I close the writ petition, by directing the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority to consider

W.P.(C).No.32064/2019 and pass orders in the appeal, within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, as directed, and the order communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the rectification order shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the Appellate Authority, for further action. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/16/12/19

W.P.(C).No.32064/2019

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.8.2018 IN WA NO 1415 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.1.2019 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL DATED 29.1.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.2.2019 FILED IN EXT P3 APPEAL EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.3.2019 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL DATED 27.4.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXHIBIT P-5 ORDER EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 1.5.2019 FILED IN EXHIBIT P7 APPEAL EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.5.2019 IN WPC NO 13355 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.11.2019, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT W.P.(C).No.32064/2019 :: 5 :: EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.11.2019 EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.2019 EXHIBIT P14 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED IN EXT P13 APPEAL DATED 21.11.2019. NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →