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

WP(C)/7042/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038632201802 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, acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in the disposal of the stay application. The Court found it appropriate to direct 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 the amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred. The principle established is that the High Court can, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, direct statutory authorities to dispose of pending applications within a reasonable time, especially when there is a demonstrable delay and potential prejudice to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by an assessment order for the assessment year 2010-11, dated March 15, 2016, issued by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent), the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) on April 11, 2016. Along with the appeal, the petitioner 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. Proceedings for realization of the amounts demanded in the assessment order had already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide a stay application within a stipulated time frame? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that there has been an inordinate delay in the disposal of their stay application by the second respondent, and that recovery proceedings have commenced, causing prejudice. They sought directions for expeditious disposal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific contentions against the assessee's plea for a direction to expedite the stay application. The Standing Counsel for the respondents appeared and was heard.

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. 7042 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F- 1582, MANNUR.P.O. PALAKKAD- 678 642, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SUNDARESWARAN.P.V BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2, 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 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7042 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 15.3.2016 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.4.2016 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.4.2016 (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7042 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 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.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

WPC No. 7042/18 2 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. tgs

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →