THE PALLASSANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7628/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039218201807 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 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 petitions (Ext.P3 series) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that until orders are passed on these stay petitions, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) shall be deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeals or the stay applications themselves, but focused on ensuring timely adjudication of the stay petitions. The principle established is that unreasonable delay in deciding stay applications can be a ground for judicial intervention to prevent prejudice to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pallassana Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by assessment orders for assessment years 2011-12, 2014-15, and 2015-16, passed by the first respondent (Income Tax Officer), the petitioner filed appeals before the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Along with these appeals, the petitioner also filed stay petitions. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay petitions. The petitioner also stated that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts covered by the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on stay petitions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ of mandamus? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay petitions is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They sought directions for a speedy disposal of the stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but does not detail their specific arguments regarding the delay or the merits of the stay petitions.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7628 of 2018 PETITIONER THE PALLASSANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F-1589 PALLASANA, PALAKKAD-678505, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C. KADER MOIDEEN. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.5, PALAKKAD-678001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. 680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 7628 of 2018 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 19.12.2016 EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED ON 22.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 25.1.2018 EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED ON 13.02.2017 EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED ON 13.2.2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 02.03.2018. EXHIBIT P3(b) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED ON 02.03.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7628 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th 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.

W.P.(c).No.7628 of 2018 : 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 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 rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →