M/S. KULAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/7921/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039511201808 March 20184 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated March 8, 2018, dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Kulapully Service Co-op Bank Ltd. The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable when an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the petitioner has the statutory right to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer. The availability of this statutory remedy, which allows for a thorough examination of the facts and legal contentions, precludes the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order itself. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue their appellate remedies. No issues were left undecided; the decision was solely on the maintainability of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kulapully Service Co-op Bank Ltd., is challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palakkad. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment order and has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner has likely exhausted or is in the process of exhausting their appellate remedies, as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is also listed as a respondent. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition challenging the assessment order, given the availability of alternative remedies. The petitioner, M/s. Kulapully Service Co-op Bank Ltd., likely argues that the assessment order suffers from a jurisdictional error or a violation of principles of natural justice, thereby justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. They may contend that the assessment is arbitrary or illegal, making the appellate process ineffective. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), would argue that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). They would contend that the writ petition is an abuse of process and that the High Court should not interfere at this stage, as factual disputes need to be resolved through the statutory appellate mechanism. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that are the subject of the assessment are not detailed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7921 of 2018 PETITIONER: M/S. KULAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD. GOVERNMENT PRESS POST, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679122., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI P.V.RAJAN. BY SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS.SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, PALAKKAD. PIN-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 7921 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 18.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.03.2016. FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ASST.ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.12.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-2015 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.11.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-2016 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.04.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-2014 SUBMITTED EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.04.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.01.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-2015 SUBMITTED EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.01.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 04.01.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-2016 SUBMITTED EXHIBIT P7(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 P8 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S.220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 25.04.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2013-2014. EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S.220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 23.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2014-15.

WP(C).No. 7921 of 2018 (M) EXHIBIT P8(B) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S. 220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 04.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2015-2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE 13/3/2018

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ......................................... W.P.(C).No.7921 of 2018 .......................................... Dated this the 8th day of March, 2018. JUDGMENT The petitioner as against the assessment order, preferred an appeal. He also filed a stay application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for exemption in the light of a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2016 (2) KLT 535). 2. In the light of the facts and circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the stay application after adverting to the judgment as above within a period of two months. Till the disposal of the stay application, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE. Cl // true copy // P.S to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →