M/S. KOTHAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAXOFFICER

WP(C)/8597/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040187201814 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay applications (Exts. P3(a) and P5(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that until orders are passed on these stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exts. P2 and P4) shall be deferred. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment orders or the stay petitions themselves, as the focus was on procedural delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kothakurisssi Service Co-op Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by assessment orders for Assessment Years 2014-15 (Exhibit P2) and 2015-16 (Exhibit P4), passed by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner filed appeals (Exhibits P3 and P5) before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with stay petitions (Exhibits P3(a) and P5(a)). 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 alleges that recovery proceedings have commenced for the amounts demanded by the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the pending stay applications filed by the assessee. The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay applications is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have been initiated. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, does not appear to have raised any specific arguments against the issuance of such a direction, other than being represented at the hearing.

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. 8597 of 2018 PETITIONER : M/S. KOTHAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD., NO. F.1049, PANAMANNA POST, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.ABDULKHADER C. 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: DSV/-

WP(C).No. 8597 of 2018 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 20.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER DATED 21.12.2016 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE PAST ASST. YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 (A). TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 23.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASST. YEAR DATED 20.11.2017 FOR AY-2015-16 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 4.1.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 (A). TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4.1.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P6 (A). TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 4.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A.TO JUDGE DSV/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C.) No.8597 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 and P4 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3 and P5 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P3(a) and P5(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P5 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) and P5(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 and P4 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(C.) No. 8597/2018

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.P3(a) and P5(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P4 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE sd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →