THE MANNARKKAD CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/7987/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039577201809 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while hearing the writ petition, acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in the disposal of stay applications. The Court found it appropriate to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay applications within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay applications. The principle derived is that undue delay in deciding statutory stay applications can be a ground for judicial intervention, and recovery proceedings may be stayed pending such decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mannarkkad Co-op Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Palakkad. Consequently, the petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur, along with applications for stay. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the appellate authority in deciding the stay applications. 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 deciding the stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ of mandamus? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and timely disposal of statutory appeals and stay petitions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in passing orders on the stay applications, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, is causing prejudice. They sought directions for the expeditious disposal of 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 in the provided text.

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 FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7987 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MANNARKKAD CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD 678582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. KRISHNAPRASAD BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.1, PALAKKAD 678001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR 680001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 7987 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 24.03.2016 EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 22.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 05.04.2016 EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 16.01.2018 EXHIBIT P 3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 05.04.2016 EXHIBIT P 3 A COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 16.01.2018 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 7987 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th 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 Ext.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 series 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 Ext.P1 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this 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

W.P. (c) No.7987/2018

case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 series 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 Ext.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →