M/S. KUTHANUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7128/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038718201802 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in the disposal of stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), directed the second respondent to decide the stay petitions within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay applications. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must act with reasonable dispatch in deciding interlocutory applications like stay petitions, and the High Court can intervene to direct such action when there is undue delay causing prejudice to the assessee. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment or the stay itself was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kuthanoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by assessment orders dated March 24, 2016, and December 20, 2017, for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2015-16, respectively, passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner filed statutory first 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 applications. Proceedings for realization of the amounts demanded by the assessment orders have already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on the stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ of mandamus? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding their stay petitions is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They rely on the general principle that appellate authorities should decide stay applications expeditiously. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue 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 FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7128 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. KUTHANUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F-1563 KUTHANUR POST, PALAKKAD 678 721 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T SURESH KUMAR BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPELAS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7128 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-3-2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20-12-2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 7128 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd 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 W.P. (c) No.7128/2018 -2- regard, in this writ petition.

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. SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →