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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7211/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038801201805 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, acknowledging the delay in the disposal of stay applications and the initiation of recovery proceedings, directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay petitions (Ext.P3 series) within two months from the date of receiving 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 judgment does not address the merits of the assessment orders or the stay petitions themselves, focusing solely on expediting the decision on the stay applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Alanallur 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) along with 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 states that recovery proceedings have commenced for the amounts demanded in the assessment orders. The writ petition seeks directions for the disposal of the stay applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, particularly when recovery proceedings have been initiated. (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and timely disposal of appeals/stay petitions under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding their stay petitions, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, is causing prejudice and necessitates judicial intervention. They rely on the general principle of timely disposal of quasi-judicial matters. 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 maintainability of the writ 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. 7211 of 2018 PETITIONER THE ALANALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ALANALLUR P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 679 601, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.SREENIVASAN. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 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. 7211 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 23.03.2016. 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 05.04.2016. EXHIBIT P2(a). COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2018. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(a). COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7211 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.7211 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 →