M/S PERINGOTUKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.P-519 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6879/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038469201801 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the stay applications (Ext.P3 series) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on these stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) shall be deferred. The reasoning is based on the facts and circumstances presented, aiming to provide interim relief to the assessee while awaiting a decision on their appeals. No specific legal provision was explicitly discussed as being violated, but the direction implies an expectation of timely administrative action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Peringottukrissi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by assessment orders dated December 19, 2016, and March 24, 2016, for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14, respectively, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5 (first respondent). The petitioner filed statutory first appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) along with stay petitions. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner also states that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts demanded by the assessment orders.

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 procedure and administrative delay). The petitioner contends that the delay is causing prejudice as recovery proceedings have commenced, and they have filed appeals and stay petitions. The revenue has not recorded any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for timely disposal of 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 THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6879 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) ------------- M/S PERINGOTTUKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.P-519, PARUTHIPULLY, PALAKKAD-678 573, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.VIJAYASANKARAN UNNI. BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------ 1.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, OFFICER OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TS WP(C).No. 6879 of 2018 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 P1(A):_ 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 P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P3(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL ------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE TS 01/03/2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6879 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018

JUDGMENT 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 assessment orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

2.

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

WPC 6879/18 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 vps 1/3 // PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →