M/S THE PAZHAMBALACODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P-492 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7252/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038842201805 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (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 further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of the amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather focused on ensuring a timely decision on the stay petition and a temporary halt to recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. The Pazhambalacode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment order dated December 19, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) therein. 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 for the amounts in the assessment order have already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions for expediting the disposal of a stay application filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when recovery proceedings have commenced. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay application is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have been initiated. They sought appropriate directions from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but no specific arguments or contentions were detailed in the judgment for the revenue.

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. 7252 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S THE PAZHAMBALACODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P-492 PAZHAMBALACODE, PALAKKAD-678 544, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.KUSALAKUMARAN. 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, BC ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. 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. 7252 of 2018 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19-12-2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT 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.7252 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.7252 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 →