M/S. OTTAPPALAM CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8587/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040177201814 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in the disposal of stay applications and the commencement of recovery proceedings, deemed it appropriate to direct the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide on the stay applications (Exts.P6(a), P7(a), P8(a), and P9(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders shall be deferred until orders are passed on these stay applications. The principle established is that undue delay in deciding stay applications, especially when coupled with recovery actions, can be a ground for judicial intervention to ensure a fair process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Ottappalam Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, 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 petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner also states that recovery proceedings have commenced for the amounts covered by 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 of mandamus? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the significant delay in the disposal of stay applications, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, causes undue hardship and prejudice. They contend that the appeals are pending before the second respondent, and the stay applications are crucial for preventing coercive recovery actions before the appeals are heard on merits. The petitioner seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of these applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay in passing orders on stay applications or the merits of the petitioner's grievance.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8587 of 2018 PETITIONER : M/S. OTTAPPALAM CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., MAIN ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.SAMPREETH.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 14-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/-

WP(C).No. 8587 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 26.10.1983 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALGHAT. EXHIBIT -P2 TRUE COPY OF ASST.ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.3.2015 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ASST.ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.3.2016 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2013-14 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASST.ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.12.2016 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASST.ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.11.2017 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 29.4.2015 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 29.4.2015 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2012-13 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.4.2016 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 21.4.2016 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT 8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 5.1.2017 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 5.1.2017 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE

WP(C).No. 8587 of 2018 (W) EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 2.1.2018 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 E-FILED BY THE EXHIBIT P9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 2.1.2018 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A.TO JUDGE DSV/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C.) No.8587 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th 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 to P5 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P6 to P8 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P6(a), P7(a), P8(a) and P9(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P6 to 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), P8(a) and 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 to P5 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this

W.P.(C.) No. 8587/2018

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.P6(a), P7(a), P8(a) and 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.P6(a), P7(a), P8(a) and P9(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 to P5 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE sd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →