KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6246/2009HC KeralaKLHC01047832200926 February 2009Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It held that if the petitioner approaches the fourth respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) by filing an appropriate application within ten days from the date of the order, the fourth respondent shall consider and decide on the application in accordance with the law within two weeks of its filing. Until such a decision is taken by the fourth respondent, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 concerning the assessment year 2003-2004 will be kept in abeyance. The Court found merit in the revenue's contention regarding the petitioner's failure to approach the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kerala Financial Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P6, an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner sought to keep proceedings related to assessment year 2003-2004 in abeyance until the disposal of appeals filed as Exts.P3 and P4. The petitioner also sought a direction to consider Ext.P4. The petitioner had been allowed to clear amounts in installments for various years. The revenue contended that the petitioner had not approached the assessing or appellate authorities before which the appeals were pending. The petitioner agreed to approach the fourth respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) within ten days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the pendency of appeals before the appellate authority is a valid ground for granting a stay of recovery proceedings, and if so, what is the scope of such stay? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to keep proceedings related to assessment year 2003-2004 in abeyance pending the disposal of their appeals (Exts.P3 and P4). The petitioner also sought a direction for the appellate authority to consider their appeal (Ext.P4). Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner had not approached the assessing authority or the appellate authority before which the appeals were pending, implying a procedural lapse on the petitioner's part.

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 K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6246 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION (A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT) HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.P.T.NANDAKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA FINANCIAL COR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I (1) TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAWAN,KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM 695 003. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 (I), OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE 1, AAYANKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR TRIVANDRUM 695 003. 6. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KAKKANAD, COCHIN. BY ADV. SHRI JOSE JOSE, SC, IT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 6246 OF 2009 A -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th February, 2009

JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P6. Further prayer is to keep the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 relating to 2003 - 2004 in abeyance till the disposal of Exts.P3 and P4 Appeals. A further direction is sought to consider Ext.P4 Appeal.

2.

I heard Shri S. Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 which is an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, noting that the pendency of Appeals cannot be a ground for grant of stay. Petitioner was allowed to clear the amount in instalments for various years in question. Shri Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel would submit that actually the petitioner has not approached either the assessing authority or the Appellate Authority before which the Appeals are pending. I see force in the said contention. Learned counsel for petitioner

WPC.6246/09 A 2 submits that the petitioner will approach the fourth respondent within a period of ten days from today. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner approaches the fourth respondent by filing an appropriate application within ten days from today, the fourth respondent will consider and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, within two weeks from the date of filing the application. Till such time as a decision is taken, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 in relation to the year 2003 - 2004 will be kept in abeyance. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. //// PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →