M/S. KULIKKILIAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9429/2018HC KeralaKLHC01041019201820 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, having considered the facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay applications (Exts.P6(a), P7(a), and P8(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exts.P2, P3, and P4) shall be deferred until orders are passed on these stay applications. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeals or the stay applications themselves, but rather addressed the procedural delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kulikkiliad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15, and 2015-16, passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) along with stay applications. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the 2nd respondent in passing orders on these stay applications, while recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts have already commenced.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in a writ petition due to the delay in the disposal of stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent has unduly delayed the disposal of stay applications (Exts.P6(a), P7(a), and P8(a)) filed along with appeals against assessment orders for AY 2012-13, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The petitioner further contended that recovery proceedings for the amounts demanded by the assessment orders have already been initiated, causing prejudice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments 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. 9429 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. KULIKKILIAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KOTTAPPURAM, P.O.SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 518 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI JAMSHEED K BY ADV.SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): 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 R 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. 9429 of 2018 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBITP1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT EXHIBITP2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23-3-2015 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2012-13 PASSED EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20-12-2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 PASSED EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-11-2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 PASSED EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 154 AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 9-6-2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBITP6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 22-4-2015 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2012-13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22-4-2015 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2012-13 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 18-1-2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 18-1-2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBITP8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 3-1-2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 E-FILED BY THE EXHIBITP8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 3-1-2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.9429 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, P3 and P4 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P6, P7 and P8 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P6(a), P7(a) and P8(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P6, P7 and P8 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.P6(a) P7(a) and P8(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, P3 and P4 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

W.P. (c) No.9429/2018

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.P6(a), P7(a) and P8(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.P6(a), P7(a) and P8(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P3 and P4 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →