KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/42079/2018HC KeralaKLHC01097310201821 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had exercised their statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition on time. The Court found that procedural fairness requires the authorities to wait before taking further steps until the appellate authority has decided on the stay petition. Therefore, the Court directed the respondent authorities to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the 2nd respondent would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, as the writ petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order passed by the 1st respondent (Income Tax Officer) before the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with their appeal. The grievance raised in this writ petition is that the revenue authorities were initiating coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition. The writ petition was filed to prevent such coercive actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities should defer coercive steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure and fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps were being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority had an opportunity to consider their stay petition. They sought a directive to halt these actions until the stay petition was decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side. The Government Pleader appeared, but their arguments are not detailed 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 42079 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED KARUVANNUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 711, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR.T.R. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BAHVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 2 THE COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 42079 of 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.

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

3.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a 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 respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd

-3- W.P.(C). No. 42079 of 2018 respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd 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 ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 18.12.2018 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION ON STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR DATED 18.12.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →