THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/8222/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039812201812 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 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 dispose of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The court directed the second respondent 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 further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exhibits P2 and P3) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay applications. The principle here is that while the court will not ordinarily interfere with the appellate authority's decision-making process, it can direct expeditious disposal of pending applications, especially when such delays cause prejudice and recovery proceedings have commenced.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Polpully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The assessee is aggrieved by assessment orders dated March 22, 2016 (Exhibit P2) and December 20, 2016 (Exhibit P3) passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2014-15, along with stay petitions (Exhibits P8 and P9). The writ petition was filed due to the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay petitions, while proceedings for recovery of the amounts demanded by the assessment orders had already commenced.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on the stay petitions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is a matter that warrants intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, concerning the procedural fairness and the potential for undue hardship to the assessee due to ongoing recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in deciding the stay applications, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, is causing prejudice and hardship. They sought directions for a timely decision on the stay petitions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed. However, the court's subsequent order suggests that the revenue did not oppose the direction for expeditious disposal of the stay applications.

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 MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8222 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F 1198 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.MANIKANDAN.K, POLPULLY.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT KERALA, PIN- 678 552 BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PALAKKAD- 678 014 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680 001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8222 of 2018 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL0 PALAKKAD DATED 7.2.2014 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 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 22.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 18.4.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 24.01.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY-2010-11 DATED 18.4.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY-2014-15 DATED 27.1.2017 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8222 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 12th 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 and P3 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P6 and P7 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P8 and P9 are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in the 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 and 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 and P3 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

WPC No. 8222 of 2018

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →