M/S. VADAKKANCHERY CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK LTD.NO.F-1219 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6884/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038474201801 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court 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 also 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 judgment does not decide the merits of the appeals or the stay applications themselves, but focuses on the procedural delay. The principle is that administrative delays in quasi-judicial proceedings, especially when coupled with potential recovery actions, can be addressed by the High Court to ensure timely justice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Vadakkanchery Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by assessment orders dated March 22, 2016, for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2013-14, 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 applications for stay. The present writ petition concerns the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner alleges that recovery proceedings have already been initiated for the amounts demanded by the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on the stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is a matter that warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay applications is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay petitions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but does not detail their specific arguments regarding the delay or the writ petition's maintainability.

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. 6884 of 2018 PETITIONER: M/S VADAKKANCHERY CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK LTD. NO.F-1219, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD-678683, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- IN CHARGE SUBASH T.K. BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: EL WP(C).No. 6884 of 2018 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBTI P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2010-11. EXHIBIT P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 PASSED BY THE IST 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 2010-11. EXHIBIT P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONENT 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 2010-11. EXHIBIT P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE EL 1.3.2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6884 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 6884 /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 →