M/S.KAZHANI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7277/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038867201805 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 application (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred. The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, but rather focused on expediting the procedural aspect of the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s.Kazhani Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The first respondent, the Income Tax Officer, passed an assessment order dated December 19, 2016, for Assessment Year 2011-12, which is Exhibit P1. The petitioner filed a statutory first appeal (Exhibit P2) and a stay petition (Exhibit P3) before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on the stay application. The petitioner also stated that recovery proceedings have commenced for the amounts demanded in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on a stay petition filed by the assessee. (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that there has been an undue delay in the disposal of their stay petition by the second respondent. They also highlighted that recovery proceedings have been initiated, causing prejudice. They sought appropriate directions to the second respondent. 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 stay petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7277 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S.KAZHANI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KAVASSERY P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678543, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PREETHA K. BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7277 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2011-12. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7277 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th 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 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. 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 application 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 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.7277 of 2018 : 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 application 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 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be deferred.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →