MUDAVANMUGHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/9124/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040714201816 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated March 16, 2018, disposed of the writ petition. The judgment states that the writ petition was disposed of in terms of a memo filed by the petitioner. The memo indicated that the petitioner intended to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, the High Court directed that the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mudavanmughal Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trivandrum. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kowdiar, Trivandrum, was the first respondent. The writ petition was filed seeking appropriate directions concerning the assessment proceedings against the petitioner. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, beyond it being an order from the CIT(A), are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not elaborated.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief by way of a writ petition concerning the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1. The petitioner likely sought to challenge the order or seek a direction for its disposal. The arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, Sri. C.A. Jojo, Sri. Jacob Chacko, and Sri. Mathews Joseph, are not detailed. Similarly, the contentions of the Income Tax Department, represented by Sri. Christopher Abraham, are also not recorded in the provided text. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that formed the basis of the dispute are not mentioned.

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 FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 9124 of 2018 PETITIONER MUDAVANMUGHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.T 847, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V.G.MAHILA, S/O.JAYAKUMARAN NAIR, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN: 695 012. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(1) KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM 695 003 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM 695 003. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 9124 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06/02/2004 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 8/5/2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 12/3/2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 24/5/2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/2/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24/5/2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9124 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th 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 Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P5 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P4 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P5 application 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 Ext.P2 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.9124 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 Ext.P5 application 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 Ext.P5 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →