M/S. VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8908/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040498201815 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay applications (Exts.P5(a), P6(a), and P7(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on these stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exts.P2, P3, and P4) shall be deferred. The principle established is that undue delay in deciding stay applications, coupled with initiation of recovery proceedings, can be a ground for High Court intervention to ensure timely justice and prevent potential prejudice to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Vallapuzha Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) along with stay applications. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner also alleges that recovery proceedings have commenced for the amounts demanded in the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ petition? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in adjudicating the stay applications is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have been initiated. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed. However, the court's order suggests an acceptance of the need for timely disposal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1)

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 THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8908 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S. VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.F.1207, NELLAYA POST, VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679335, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.ASHRAFALI P. BY ADV.SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8908 of 2018 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 17-10-2014 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OTTAPPALAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28-3-2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 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 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 18-4-2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 18-4-2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 12-1-2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 12-1-2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 1-1-2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 1-1-2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE U/S.221(1) DATED 28-2-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 10-3-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8908 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2018

JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P2, P3 & P4 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P5, P6 & P7 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P5(a), P6(a) & P7(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P5, P6 & 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.P5(a), P6(a) & 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, P3 & P4 assessment orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate

WPC 8908 /18 -:2:- directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 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.P5(a), P6(a) & 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.P5(a), P6(a) & P7(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P3 & P4 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 15/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →