MUGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KASARAGOD

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/30650/2019HC KeralaKLHC01080266201914 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court also ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the impugned orders (Exts.P1 and P2) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the second respondent and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent. The court did not decide the merits of the disallowance under Section 80P, as the appeal was pending.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mugu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment orders and orders under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had preferred an appeal, a stay petition, and a delay condonation application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, the second respondent. The core issue in the appeal concerned the disallowance made under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sought a time-bound disposal of their appeal and a stay on recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate authority (2nd respondent) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal within a specified time frame, and if recovery proceedings should be stayed pending such decision. This issue turns on the court's inherent powers to ensure timely justice and prevent undue hardship to the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal before the second respondent, concerning disallowance under Section 80P, needed to be adjudicated promptly. They also sought a stay on recovery of amounts confirmed by the impugned orders until their appeal was decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's side regarding the directions sought by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P(C) No.30650/19 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.30650 OF 2019(E) PETITIONER/S: MUGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. MUGU P.O., PUTHIGE, (VIA) KUMBLA, KASARAGOD-671 321,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, SHRI.SANJEEVA RAI BY ADVS. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.NISHA JOHN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SMT.BENITA ALPHONSA BASIL SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KASARAGOD WARD-1,KASARAGOD 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, AYYAKKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001 OTHER PRESENT: SC, CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) No.30650/19 2

JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 and P2 assessment order and orders under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal, P3(a) stay petition and P3(b) delay condonation application before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the issue involved in the appeal pertains to the disallowance under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3.

Taking note of the fact that this Court has in similar cases directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal in a time bound manner and stayed the recovery proceedings, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, as directed, and orders communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition and a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

okb //// P.S. to Judge

W.P(C) No.30650/19 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE 30.09.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 DATED 9.03.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 06.11.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 30.10.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 B TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION DATED 30.10.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.11.20-19 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.0.2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →