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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/874/2019HC KeralaKLHC01002343201911 January 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 their appeal within the statutory period and had also filed a stay petition. The Court found that procedural fairness dictated that the revenue should await the decision of the appellate authority on the stay petition before proceeding with any coercive measures. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope for an expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the appellate authority. No specific issues regarding the merits of the assessment order were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kuzhur 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. Alleging that coercive steps were being taken by the authorities before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition, the petitioner filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner has exercised their statutory remedy of appeal in time and filed a stay petition? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural compliance). The petitioner argued that they had filed their appeal within the stipulated time and had also filed a stay petition. They contended that the authorities were initiating coercive steps prematurely, before the appellate authority had an opportunity to decide on the stay application. The revenue did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment.

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 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 874 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: KUZHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED KUZHUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 734, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT.SUNITHA.V.R. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN- 688 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001. OTHER PRESENT: GP. SMT. M.M. JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 874 of 2019

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. 874 of 2019 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 26/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 07/01/2019 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/01/2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →