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

WP(C)/7245/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038835201805 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take a decision on the stay application (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed 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 principle here is that the High Court can intervene to direct expeditious disposal of pending applications before appellate authorities, especially when there is a risk of coercive recovery action before a decision on stay is made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kalladikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16, issued by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) and also filed an application for stay of demand. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay application. The petitioner states that recovery proceedings have already been initiated for the amounts demanded in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition concerning the delay in passing a stay order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when an appeal is pending. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay application is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek directions for a speedy disposal of the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the maintainability of the writ petition or the request for expediting the stay order. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by 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. 7245 of 2018 PETITIONER THE KALLADIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KALLADIKODE POST, PALAKKAD-678 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BINOY JOSEPH. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO. 4, 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. 7245 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7245 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.7245 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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →