KUTTIKAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/28347/2019HC KeralaKLHC01073589201924 October 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, taking cue from its own judgment in Ext.P5, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeals (Exts.P2 and P2(a)) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Crucially, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P1(a)) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until such time as the 2nd respondent passes orders on the appeals and communicates them to the petitioner. The principle established is that in certain circumstances, and following precedent, appellate authorities should expedite appeals and maintain status quo regarding recovery pending their decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kuttiyad Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging stay orders (Exts.P4 and P4(a)) issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). These orders directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand raised by the assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P1(a)) as a condition for a stay of the balance amount pending appeal. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court judgment (Ext.P5) where a complete stay against recovery was granted. The assessment orders were passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The assessment years are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pay 20% of the demand as a pre-condition for stay of recovery pending appeal is arbitrary and unreasonable, especially in light of previous High Court pronouncements. (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and appellate powers). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the stay orders were arbitrary and placed reliance on Ext.P5, a judgment of the High Court of Kerala, which granted a complete stay against recovery pending disposal of appeals. This implies the petitioner contended that a similar relief should be granted in their case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

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 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28347 OF 2019(P) PETITIONER: KUTTIKAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KUTTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680721, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SMT.LISSY K.G.. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN RAJATH R.NATH RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN- 680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.28347 OF 2019(P) 2

JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeals the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions, which came to be disposed by Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand confirmed against him by the assessment orders as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of the balance amount pending disposal of the appeals. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the said stay orders, inter alia, by placing reliance on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, where this Court granted a complete stay against recovery pending disposal of the appeals by the first appellate authority. Taking cue from the said judgment, this Writ Petition is disposed by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals 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 P1(a) assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. 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 mns

WP(C).No.28347 OF 2019(P) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17/01/2019 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17/01/2019 AGAINST EXT.P1(A). EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/02/2019. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/02/2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DATED 26/09/2019. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 DATED 26/09/2019. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WA NO.1536 OF 2019 PASSED ON 01/07/2019. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT ISSUED BY SINGLE JUDGE BENCH IN WP(C) 21375/2019 DATED 09/08/2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →