M/S. PERUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8746/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040336201815 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the pending stay applications (Exts.P3(a), P7(a), P8(a) & P9(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exts.P2, P4, P5 & P6) shall be deferred until orders are passed on these stay applications. The principle is that administrative delays in appellate authorities should not prejudice assessees, and appropriate directions can be issued to expedite such matters, with a stay on recovery pending the decision on stay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Perur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by assessment orders for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, passed by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner filed appeals before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with stay applications. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications, while proceedings for realization of the assessed amounts have already been initiated. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions from the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in a writ petition concerning the delay in passing stay orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when appeals and stay applications are pending. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay applications is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They sought directions for a timely decision on the stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's learned Standing Counsel. However, the court heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

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. 8746 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. PERUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. PERUR P.O., LAKKIDI PALAKKAD-679302 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI SATHISH.K BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): 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. 8746 of 2018 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 3.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.3.2016 OF THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.4.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.4.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.3.2016 OF THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.12.2016 OF THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.11.2017 OF THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.4.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION PETITION DATED 23.4.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.1.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.1.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P9; TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 4.1.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P9(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4.1.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE

WP(C).No. 8746 of 2018 (P) EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S 220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 25.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2010-11 EXHIBIT P10(a): TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S 220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 25.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2013-14 EXHIBIT P10(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S 220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 23.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2014-15 EXHIBIT P10(c): TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD U/S 220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 4.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8746 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, P4, P5 & P6 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3, P7, P8 & P9 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P3(a), P7(a), P8(a) & P9(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P3, P7, P8 & P9 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), P7(a), P8(a) & P9(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, P5 & P6 assessment orders. The petitioner,

WPC 8746 /18 -:2:- therefore, seeks appropriate 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.P3(a), P7(a), P8(a) & P9(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), P7(a), P8(a) & P9(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P4, P5 & P6 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 15/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →