THE ARIYUR SERVICE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7232/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038822201805 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while hearing the writ petition, 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 ratio is that in cases of significant delay in deciding stay petitions by appellate authorities, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct expeditious disposal and defer recovery proceedings to ensure fairness and prevent prejudice to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ariyur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for the assessment 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 grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on the stay petitions. The petitioner states that recovery proceedings have already commenced for the amounts demanded by the assessment orders. The writ petition seeks directions for expeditious disposal of the stay applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (though the judgment refers to the High Court, the context of appeals and stay petitions implies this is the forum for dispute resolution) should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on stay petitions filed by the assessee? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that there is an undue delay in the disposal of their stay petitions by the second respondent, and recovery proceedings are being initiated, causing prejudice. They seek a direction for timely disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the stay petitions. The revenue was represented by their Standing 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. 7232 of 2018 PETITIONER THE ARIYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KOTTOPADAM P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.P. KARTHIAYANI. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON 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, THIRSSUR - 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. 7232 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 23/03/2016 EXHIBIT-P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOF THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 22/12/2017 EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETIIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/04/2016 EXHIBIT-P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETIIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/01/2018 EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITIONN FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/04/2018 EXHIBIT-P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITIONN FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/01/2018 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7232 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.7232 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 →