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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6839/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038429201801 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay application (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay application. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, focusing solely on the procedural delay and its immediate consequences.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kozhinjampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 19, 2016, for the assessment year 2011-12, issued by the Income Tax Officer (Ward No. 5, Palakkad). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur, along with a stay petition. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay petition. The petitioner also states that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts covered by the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing an order on the stay petition filed by the assessee warrants intervention by the High Court. (Question of procedure and administrative delay) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay petition, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, is causing prejudice. They seek a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the stay petition. The revenue's counsel was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the judgment.

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. 6839 of 2018 PETITIONER: THE KOZHINJAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.P.500, KOHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD-678 555, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.SOBHANA. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.5, PALAKKAD- 678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 & R2 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: sts 1/3/2018 WP(C).No. 6839 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12, DATED 19/12/2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 01/02/2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE sts 1/3/2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6839 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 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 assessment order. 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. 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

WPC 6839 /18 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 vps 1/3 // PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →