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

WP(C)/7242/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038832201805 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 (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 further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petitions. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment orders or the stay petitions themselves, focusing solely on the procedural delay and the need for expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karakurissi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by assessment orders for the years 2013-14 and 2015-16, issued by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) and 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. Proceedings for realization of the amounts demanded in the assessment orders have already been initiated. The petitioner seeks directions from the High Court regarding this delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on pending stay petitions filed by the assessee, considering the delay and initiation of recovery proceedings? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that there has been an undue delay by the second respondent in deciding the stay petitions, and recovery proceedings have commenced, causing prejudice. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

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. 7242 of 2018 PETITIONER THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., 229, KARAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD 678595, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.P.RAVEENDRAN BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO. 2, 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 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7242 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 23.03.2016 EXHIBIT P1 (a) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 COP OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 18.04.2016 EXHIBIT P2 (a) COP OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 12.01.2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 12.01.2018 EXHIBIT P3 (a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 18.04.2016 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7242 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.7242 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 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 →