THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/33020/2019HC KeralaKLHC01086180201905 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's appeals (Ext.P2 and P2(a)) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) and rectification order (Ext.P1(a)) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes orders as directed and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for further action. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or rectification orders themselves.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Akathetara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., has filed a writ petition challenging assessment order (Ext.P1) and rectification order (Ext.P1(a)) passed by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner had preferred appeals (Ext.P2 and P2(a)) along with stay petitions (Ext.P3 and P3(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that recovery steps are being taken by the respondents for the amounts confirmed by the assessment and rectification orders, even before the stay petitions are considered. The writ petition seeks to address this situation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the respondents are premature, given that the appeals and stay petitions are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery steps are being pursued despite pending appeals and stay petitions, implying an undue haste by the revenue before the appellate authority has had a chance to adjudicate on the matter. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents.

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 THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.33020 OF 2019(B) PETITIONER THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., F-1514, AKATHETHARA POST, PALAKKAD - 678 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS SERETARY, SUBHA VARMA P. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC, JOSE JOSEPH GP THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).33020/2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 assessment order and P1(a) rectification order, under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 and P2(a) appeals together with Ext.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petitions, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Exts.P1 assessment order and P1(a) rectification order.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

1.

The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P2 and P2(a) appeals within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

2.

Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 assessment order and P1(a) rectification order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

3.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Mrcs/5.12.

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT - 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT - 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →