M/S PUTHUCODE SERVIE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.P-1151 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/7238/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038828201805 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 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 also 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 Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the stay application itself, but rather focused on directing the appellate authority to act expeditiously. The principle established is that appellate authorities should not unduly delay decisions on stay applications, and until such decisions are made, recovery proceedings should be held in abeyance to prevent prejudice to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Puthucode Servie 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, Ward-5, Palakkad, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and simultaneously filed an application for stay of demand. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the appellate authority in passing an order on the stay application. The petitioner also states that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts demanded in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on a stay application filed by the assessee, considering the delay in passing such an order and the initiation of recovery proceedings. (Question of procedure and administrative oversight) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay application is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek a direction for a speedy disposal of the stay petition. 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 stay application.

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. 7238 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S PUTHUCODE SERVIE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.P-1151 PUTHUCODE, PALAKKAD 678687 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE M. KARTHIAYANI BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC. ROAD, PALAKKAD 678014 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKARA BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, 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. 7238 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE 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.7238 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.7238 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 →