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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6836/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038426201801 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from a High Court of Kerala judgment, not an ITAT judgment. It is a procedural order admitting a writ petition. Therefore, there is no finding on any issue, no reasoning, and no ratio decidendi recorded in this excerpt. The operative directions are limited to the admission of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Moolathara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5, Palakkad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. The writ petition challenges an order or action by the revenue authorities. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The provided text does not contain the specific issues that the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it record the arguments presented by the assessee or the revenue. Therefore, it is not possible to frame the questions of law or mixed law and fact, or to detail the contentions and authorities relied upon by each side.

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. 6836 of 2018 ---------------------- PETITIONER : ----------- THE MOOLATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MEENAKSHIPURAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAN C. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS : ----------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.5, PALAKKAD -678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 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: bp 01/3/2018 WP(C).No. 6836 of 2018 ------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : --------------------- P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 21/3/2016. P1(a): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 ISSUED BY R1 DATED 21/3/2016. P1(b): COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY R1 DATED 21/3/2016. P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DATED 28/4/2016. P2(a): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DATED 28/4/2016. P2(b): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DATED 28/4/2016. P3: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. P3(a): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. P3(b): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 P4: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 26/9/2016 P4(a): COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 26/9/2016. P4(b): COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BYT HE R1 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 26/9/2016 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE bp 01/03/2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6836 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 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition

WPC 6836 /18 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. This shall be done untrammelled by the orders, if any, passed by the competent authorities under the Act in exercise of their powers under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. 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 →