THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/8521/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040111201813 March 20184 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the stay applications (Exhibits P8 and P9) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until orders are passed on these stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of the amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exhibits P2 and P3) shall be deferred. The Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with these directions, considering the facts and circumstances. No specific issues were left undecided; the Court provided a procedural resolution.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders dated March 24, 2016 (Exhibit P2) and December 20, 2016 (Exhibit P3) issued by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. Consequently, the petitioner filed appeals (Exhibits P6 and P7) before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with stay applications (Exhibits P8 and P9). The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications, while recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts have already commenced. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions from the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions for the expeditious disposal of stay applications filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when recovery proceedings are initiated. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay applications, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, causes prejudice. They seek intervention from the High Court to direct the appellate authority to decide the stay petitions promptly. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on any authorities by the revenue are mentioned 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 TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8521 of 2018 PETITIONER THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 1193,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN-CHARGE,SHRI.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN,S/O.M.KUTTYMUTHALI, ELAPPULLY.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,KERALA-678622. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,PALAKKAD-678014. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THRISSUR-680001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8521 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD ISSUED BY THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),PALAKKAD DATED 07.02.2014 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFIED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 19.04.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 23.01.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 19.4.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 23.01.2017 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8521 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th 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 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P6 & P7 appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P8 & P9 are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.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.P8 & P9 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 assessment orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

WPC 8521 /18 -: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.P8 & P9 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.P8 & P9 applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 & P3 assessment orders, shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 14/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →