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

WP(C)/7057/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038647201802 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 applications filed by the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court also ordered that until orders are passed on these stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders shall be deferred. The reasoning for this decision is based on the need to address the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay and the potential prejudice caused by the commencement of recovery proceedings while stay applications are pending. The principle established is that significant delays in deciding interim relief applications, coupled with initiation of recovery, can justify judicial intervention to ensure timely justice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Chittur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by assessment orders for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13, issued by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner filed appeals before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with applications for stay. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner also stated that proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders have already been initiated.

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 through a writ petition? (Question of law and procedure) The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding their stay applications is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They sought directions for a speedy disposal of the stay petitions. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, was heard, but no specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding the delay or the merits of the stay applications.

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. 7057 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.GIRIJADEVI. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.5, PALAKKAD-678001. 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 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7057 of 2018 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 15.3.2016. EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 15.3.2016. EXHIBIT P1(B): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2017. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P2(A): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P2(B): COPY OF APPEAL FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P3(A): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P3(B): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7057 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd 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.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC No.7057 of 2018 2 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. tgs

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →