IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/38019/2018HC KeralaKLHC01088188201823 November 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 its statutory remedy of filing an appeal and a stay petition in a timely manner. The Court found that procedural fairness requires the authorities to wait before taking further coercive 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 second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the stay petition would be disposed of expeditiously. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Irinjalakuda Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who is the second respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed a stay petition. The petitioner filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala alleging that the revenue authorities were taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition.

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) The assessee contended that they have exercised their statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition on time. They argued that procedural fairness dictates that coercive steps should be withheld until the appellate authority has had an opportunity to consider the stay petition. The revenue did not record any 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 FRIDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 38019 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.R.312, IRIJALAKUDA, PIN - 680 121, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.LENIS K. LOUIS. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), RANGE - 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 38019/2018 -2-

J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank under the Income Tax Act 1961, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order before the second respondent. The petitioner, in the appeal, filed a stay petition, too. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition in the appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears thatit 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.

W.P.(C) No. 38019/2018 -3- Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the second respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the second respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17/11/2018 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION ON STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR DATED 17/11/2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →