M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/19600/2013HC KeralaKLHC01062792201307 August 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated August 7, 2013, did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The judgment does not record any specific findings on the issues raised by the petitioner or the contentions of the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition itself. The specific reason for this disposal, whether it was on merits or on procedural grounds like the availability of alternative remedies, is not explicitly stated. Therefore, no principle can be extracted as a ratio decidendi for future cases based on the merits of the tax dispute. No issue was expressly left undecided; the entire petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The writ petition challenges an order or action taken by these authorities. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order or action of the income tax authorities by way of a writ petition before the High Court, given the availability of alternative remedies. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner likely argues that the writ petition is maintainable due to exceptional circumstances, such as a violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or an error apparent on the face of the record, which may render the alternative remedies ineffective. Specific precedents or statutory provisions supporting this argument are not mentioned. Revenue's Contention: The revenue authorities likely contend that the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available, such as appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, a writ petition is not maintainable. They would rely on the general principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be invoked when efficacious alternative remedies exist. Specific authorities or precedents are not mentioned.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

WP(C).No. 19600 of 2013

ITA NO.175/COCH/2013

ITA NO176/COCH/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/16TH SRAVANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 19600 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER -------------------------- M/S. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A. KAMATH SRI. SREEJITH R. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 1 (2), TRIVANDRUM. 695 001. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 2, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 003. 5. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM 682 018 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08- 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19600 of 2013 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7-12-2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 COPY OF the ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27-12-2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER by the 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-3-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-3-2013 IN FIRST APPEAL AGAINST EXT.P1 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-3-2013 IN FIRST APPEAL AGAINST EXT.P2 BY THE 4TJ RESPONDENT EXT.P6 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P7 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P8 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 EXT.P9 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 EXT/P10 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P11 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29-6-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXT.P12 COPY OF THE ORDER GIVING TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 EXTP13 COPY OF THE ORDER GIVING TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 EXT.P14 COPY OF THE STAY PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT FOR THEYEAR 2008-09 EXT.P15 COPY OF THE STAY PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT FOR THEYEAR 2009-10 EXT.P16 COPY OF COVERING LETTER ALONG WITH THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.PC. 16850/2013 EXT.P17 COPY OF POSTING NOTICE DATED 9-7-2013 EXT.P18 COPY OF RESTORATION APPLICATION IN ITA NO.175/COCH/2013 EXT.P19 COPY OF THE RESTORATION APPLICATION IN ITA NO176/COCH/2013 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.19600 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 7th day of August, 2013

J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed Exts.P6 and P7 appeals against Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessment. The appeals were accompanied by Exts.P14 and P15 petitions for stay. But the petitions for stay were dismissed on 11-7-2013 in the absence of the petitioner.

Interest of justice warrants that the appeals itself are considered by the fifth respondent expeditiously. I direct the fifth respondent to consider Exts.P6 and P7 appeals expeditiously and at any rate within a period of two months.

The coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P12 and P13 orders of assessment shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the amount due thereunder within a period of two weeks. No further directions are warranted and the writ petition is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →