MANKADA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/34232/2015HC KeralaKLHC01080068201513 November 2015Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated November 13, 2015, did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by observing that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and if aggrieved by that order, the further remedy lies with the ITAT. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits, leaving the substantive issues undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mankada Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the order or action under challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated upon, other than the fact that it is being presented for admission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) through a writ petition, given the availability of alternative remedies. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its senior advocate, is seeking relief via a writ petition. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities are recorded for the petitioner in the provided text. Revenue's Contention: The Income Tax Department, represented by its counsel, is the respondent. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities are recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

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 FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/22ND KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 34232 of 2015 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- MANKADA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., MANKADA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 324, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI.K.ANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR - 676 101 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKARA BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 34232 of 2015 (D) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2.3.2015 P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2015 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN DATED 14.5.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34232 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of November 2015

JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent, in stay applications preferred by the petitioner along with appeals filed against assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, where amounts were confirmed against the petitioner by disallowing deductions under Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act. In Ext.P4 stay order, the 2nd respondent has passed a conditional order of stay requiring the petitioner to effect payments as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to Ext.P4 stay order, he has also paid the first instalment, directed therein. The prayer in the writ petition is essentially for a stay of the direction to remit the balance amount in instalments in view of the fact that the income tax appeals preferred by other assessees against orders of the appellate Tribunal confirming demands similar to what was confirmed against the petitioner, are pending consideration before this Court and in those appeals, this Court has granted a stay of recovery of amounts pending disposal of the appeals.

W.P.(c).No.34232 of 2015 : 2 :

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar and taking note of the fact that in identical matters this Court has granted a stay pending disposal of the income tax appeals, I modify the directions in Ext.P4 conditional order of stay granted by the 2nd respondent by making it clear that, insofar as the petitioner had already paid the 1st instalment mentioned in Ext.P4 order, the petitioner will not be required to make any further payment in the matter pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. There will be a further direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders in the appeals within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The recovery steps for recovery of amounts from the petitioner pursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE sm/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →