CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

WP(C)/7886/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039476201808 March 20183 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and the revenue. Instead, the Court focused on the procedural aspect of whether a writ petition was the appropriate remedy. The Court held that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available in the form of an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Therefore, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was that the statutory scheme provides for a clear appellate mechanism to address grievances arising from income tax assessments and appeals. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue their remedies before the statutory appellate authority. No specific issue regarding the income tax assessment itself was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(5), and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition challenges an order or action by the revenue authorities. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, as well as the amount in dispute, are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to maintain a writ petition challenging the actions of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner likely argued for the maintainability of the writ petition, possibly on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or other fundamental legal flaws in the revenue's proceedings. The revenue, represented by its Standing Counsel, would have contended against the maintainability of the writ petition, likely arguing that alternative remedies, such as appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) or other statutory forums, were available and ought to have been pursued. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or other relevant laws that formed the basis of the dispute are not detailed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 7886 of 2018

WP(C)NO.38566 OF 2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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. 7886 of 2018 ----------------- PETITIONER(S) -------------

THE CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1155,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O.,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 304.

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

RANGE - 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O.,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. 09/03/2018.

WP(C).No. 7886 of 2018 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.07.2013, ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHIRAYINKEEZHU. EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013 DATED 13-12-2017. EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13-12-2017. EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 07-12-2017. EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 07-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN ITA NO.148/EF/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2016-17 DATED 23-02-2018. EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AADAT2148N/W-2(5)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 15-02-2018. EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10-02-2018. EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10-02-2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT-P8 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT.P4 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10-02-2018. EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10-02-2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT-P10 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-12-2017 IN WP(C)NO.38566 OF 2017. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. 09/03/2018.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P. (C) No.7886 of 2018 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, as against the assessment orders, Exts.P2 and P4, filed Exts.P8 and P10 appeals before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also filed Exts.P9 and P11 stay applications. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the stay applications filed by the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P12 judgment, within a period of two months, after issuing notice to the petitioner. Till disposal of the stay applications, all recovery proceedings based on the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →