THE POTTASSERY SERVICE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7206/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038796201805 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, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the stay applications (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 applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) shall be deferred. The reasoning was based on the facts and circumstances presented, including the delay in adjudication and the initiation of recovery proceedings. The principle established is that the High Court can intervene to ensure timely disposal of stay applications by appellate authorities and to prevent premature recovery actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pottassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner filed appeals against assessment orders for the years 2013-14 and 2015-16, issued by the Income Tax Officer (respondent 1). Along with the appeals, the petitioner filed stay petitions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 2). The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner also stated that recovery proceedings for the amounts covered by the assessment orders had already commenced.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pass orders on the pending stay applications filed by the assessee, considering the delay in adjudication and the initiation of recovery proceedings. (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and timely disposal of appeals). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that there has been an undue delay by the second respondent in deciding the stay applications, which has led to the initiation of recovery proceedings. The petitioner sought appropriate directions from the High Court to expedite the decision on the stay petitions. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's counsel.

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. 7206 of 2018 PETITIONER THE POTTASSERY SERVICE CO-PERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P 543, POTTASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 598, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JOLLY SEBASTIAN. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.3, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680 001. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER:SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN 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. 7206 of 2018 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 29.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1(a). COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 22.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.04.2016. EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2018. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(a). COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7206 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 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.7206 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.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →