M/S.MANGODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/8725/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040315201814 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay applications (Exts.P3(a), P6(a), and P7(a)) within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exts.P2, P4, and P5) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay applications. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the assessment orders or the stay petitions themselves, focusing solely on the procedural delay. The principle established is that significant procedural delays in the appellate process, particularly concerning stay applications, can be addressed by the High Court through writ petitions, with a directive for expeditious disposal and a stay on recovery pending the decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Mangode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palakkad. The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also filed stay petitions along with the appeals. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in passing orders on these stay petitions. The petitioner also states 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 petitions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, concerning the Income Tax Act. The assessee's contention is that the delay in adjudicating the stay applications is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have been initiated. The assessee seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petitions. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, was heard, but their specific arguments or reliance on any provisions, circulars, or precedents are not recorded in the judgment.

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. 8725 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S.MANGODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MANGODE POST, CHERPLASSERY VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 503 - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT.SARASWATHY.K. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 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. 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:

WP(C).No. 8725 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION DATED 10.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.03.2016 FOR AY-2013-14 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.04.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.04.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY-2013-14 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2016 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 24.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND EXT.P6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 04.01.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND EXT.P7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 04.01.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.04.2016 RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14. EXT.P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.01.2017 EXT.P8(b): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.01.2018 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8725 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th 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, P4 and P5 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3, P6 and P7 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P3(a), P6(a) and P7(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P3, P6 and 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.P3(a), P6(a) and 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, P4 and P5 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.8725 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 Exts.P3(a), P6(a) and 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.P3(a), P6(a) and P7(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P4 and P5 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →