UMAYANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, vs. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY,

WP(C)/5144/2019HC KeralaKLHC01013344201920 February 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had filed an appeal within the prescribed time and had also filed a stay petition. The Court held that procedural fairness requires the revenue authorities to wait before taking further steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 1st respondent (ITAT) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the ITAT would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment orders or the appeal itself, as the decision was based on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Umayanalloor Service Co-operative Bank, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner challenged assessment orders before the appellate authority, which rejected the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT), the 1st respondent, and also filed a stay petition. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the revenue authorities are taking coercive steps before the ITAT could decide on the stay petition. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities can initiate coercive steps against the assessee while a stay petition is pending before the appellate authority (ITAT). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that coercive steps should not be taken as they have availed the statutory remedy of appeal and filed a stay petition. They contended that procedural fairness dictates that the appellate authority should have an opportunity to decide on the stay petition before any coercive action is taken. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 5144 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: UMAYANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY, (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 4, KOLLAM-691001. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 5144 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, questioned the Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders, before the appellate authority, who rejected it. Later, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent with second appeal. The petitioner has also filed stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing appeal. It appears that he has also filed stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the -3- W.P.(C). No. 5144 of 2019 respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 1st respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 1st respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 17/1/50 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 5/10/1962. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2018 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 12/1/19 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 12/1/19 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/2/19 OF R2 EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/3/18 IN WPC 6935/18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →