M/S. SREE RAMAKRISHNA SERVICE CO-OP, BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/9565/2018HC KeralaKLHC01041155201820 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay applications (Exts.P3(a), P6(a), and P7(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court reasoned that such directions are necessary to address the grievance of the petitioner concerning the delay in the disposal of their appeals and stay petitions, especially when recovery proceedings have been initiated. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders shall be deferred. No specific issue was left undecided; the court provided a procedural remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Sree Ramakrishna Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16, passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) and also filed stay applications. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications, while proceedings for recovery of the amounts demanded by the assessment orders have already been initiated. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions from the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene by issuing directions for the expeditious disposal of stay applications filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when there is a delay in passing orders, and recovery proceedings have commenced? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in disposing of stay applications, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, causes prejudice and hardship. They rely on the principle that appeals should not be rendered infructuous due to procedural delays. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific contention against the petitioner's plea for expeditious disposal of stay applications. The judgment does not record any argument from the revenue's side.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 9565 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S. SREE RAMAKRISHNA SERVICE CO-OP, BANK LTD. PALAPPURAM POST, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 103 - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SMT.SOBHANAKUMARI M.G. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, PALAKKAD-678 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 9565 of 2018 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALGHAT VIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13.10.1966 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.03.2015 FOR THE ASS. YEAR 2012-13 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.154 DATED 9.6.2016 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 22.04.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2012-13 EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 22.04.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2012-13 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.04.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.04.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 4.01.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4.01.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.04.2016 RESPONDENT FOR AY-2012-13 EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.04.2016 RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14 EXHIBIT P8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4.1.2018 RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9565 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P2, P4 and P5 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3, P6 and P7 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P3(a), P6(a) and P7(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P3, P6 and P7 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Exts.P3(a), P6(a) and P7(a) applications for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P4 and P5 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.9565 of 2018 : 2 : 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3(a), P6(a) and P7(a) applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Exts.P3(a), P6(a) and P7(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P4 and P5 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →