VELLANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/40029/2018HC KeralaKLHC01092944201810 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had exercised their statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition within the prescribed time. The Court found that procedural fairness requires the revenue authorities to wait for the appellate authority's decision on the stay petition before taking further coercive steps. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to defer coercive steps until the third respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the stay petition would be disposed of expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Vellanaad Service Co-operative Bank Limited, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenged a rectified assessment order by filing an appeal before the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with the appeal. The grievance in this writ petition is that the revenue authorities are initiating coercive steps before the appellate authority has had an opportunity to decide on the stay petition. The petitioner seeks intervention to prevent such coercive actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue authorities can initiate coercive steps against the assessee before the appellate authority decides on the stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure and fairness) The assessee contended that they have availed the statutory remedy of appeal and filed a stay petition. They argued that procedural fairness dictates that coercive steps should be deferred until the stay petition is decided by the appellate authority. The revenue did not record any specific arguments 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 MONDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 40029 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S VELLANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.2379, VELLANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695543, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY IN CHARGE MRS.BINDU.S.M. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.ANJANA KANNATH SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.40029 of 2018 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 questioned the rectified assessment order, before the third 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 third respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the third respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

WPC No.40029 of 2018 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AAAAV478F DATED 20/10/2017 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 07/12/2017 IN RELATION TO EXT.P1 ORDER FILED FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/01/2018 UNDER SECTION 154 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 02/02/2018 IN EXT.P3 ORDER PENDING BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ITA NO.20/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2014-2015 DATED 07/06/2016 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.AAAV478F/ITA/W-2(3)TVM/2018-19 DATED 22/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 15/11/2018 AND PENDING BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P4 APPEAL. Css/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →