PWD IRRIGATION AND LSGD EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.T 638, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/34793/2018HC KeralaKLHC01079971201825 October 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, applying the ratio of the Division Bench judgment dated 23rd July 2018 in W.A. No. 1196 of 2018 and connected cases, disposed of the writ petition. The Court found that the issues raised by the petitioner were squarely covered by this earlier Division Bench decision. While the specific relief granted by the Division Bench is not detailed in this judgment, the application of its ratio implies that the petitioner's prayers, which included a stay of demand and coercive steps pending appeal, were likely granted in line with that precedent. The judgment does not explicitly state the findings on each specific prayer but indicates that the entire petition was disposed of based on the covered issues. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, PWD Irrigation and LSGD Employee Co-operative Society Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged orders marked as Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P7, and sought to stay their operation and demand. The petitioner also requested that coercive steps pursuant to Exhibit P7 be kept in abeyance. The core of the petitioner's prayer was for the Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) to consider their appeal on merit and to restrain respondents from initiating coercive proceedings until final orders were passed in their appeal before the 1st respondent (Exhibit P3). The assessment years are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the operation of Exhibit P1 and P7 orders and demand should be stayed, and coercive steps pursuant to Exhibit P7 should be kept in abeyance, pending the disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent, by accepting 1% of the demand under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural relief and statutory provisions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a stay of the impugned orders and demand, and an injunction against coercive steps, pending the appeal. They proposed to deposit 1% of the demand under Section 68. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 1196 of 2018 and connected cases, dated 23rd July 2018, which they contended squarely covered the issues in their favour. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

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 THURSDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 34793 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: PWD IRRIGATION AND LSGD EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.T 638, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, PALAYAM, NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 695 033. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 2, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 2 THE INCOME TAX, WARD-2(1), KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 003. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM , SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 34793 of 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner in the writ petition seeks the following reliefs; “i) to stay the operation of exhibit P1, and P7 orders and demand till the final disposal of the appeal by accepting 1% of the demand u/s 68. ii) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P1 and P7 orders and issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to keep in abeyance the coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P7. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider the appeal on merit and also restrain the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings against the petitioner society till the final orders are passed in Ext.P3 appeal before the 1st respondent.” Both the counsel agree that the issues stand squarely covered in the petitioner's favour by the learned Division Bench judgment, dated 23rd July 2018, of this Court in W.A. No.1196 of 2018 and connected cases. I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition applying the ratio of the judgment referred to above. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das

-3- W.P.(C). No. 34793 of 2018

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-FILED APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 09.01.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.01.2017 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2018. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.25006/2018 DATED 26.07.2018. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON STAY PETITION DATED 12.10.2018.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →