PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7035/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038625201801 March 20185 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated March 1, 2018, disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner bank had not pressed the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of any substantive issue. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, acknowledging the petitioner's decision not to proceed with it.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Income Tax Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Principal Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner. The writ petition challenges an order or action taken by these authorities. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated upon.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the present form, given the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank has not explicitly stated its arguments regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or any other substantive issue. The focus appears to be on seeking relief through the writ jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The revenue authorities, represented by Sri. Christopher Abraham, would likely argue that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has statutory alternative remedies available, such as filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 7035 of 2018

ITA NO.361/COCH/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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. 7035 of 2018 PETITIONER PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.T.1412 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.VISWAKUMAR V., S/O.K.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, AGED 54 YRS, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -695 005. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1) KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM -695 003. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7035 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13.03.2014 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-FILED APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 31.01.2017 FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 18.03.2017 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON REVIEW PETITION DATED 07.02.2018 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.02.2018 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.361/COCH/2016 DATED 18.11.2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7035 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a Co-operative Society and an assessee on the files of the first respondent under the Income Tax Act. Ext.P2 is the assessment order of the petitioner for the year 2014-15. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P4 appeal has now been disposed of in terms of Ext.P7 order. In terms of Ext.P7 order, the assessment order of the petitioner has been modified. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 order has been communicated to the petitioner only on 23/02/2018. Immediately thereafter, it is alleged : 2 : that steps have been taken for realization of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 order. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the statute provides sixty days' time for filing appeal and the conduct on the part of the respondents concerned in attempting to realize the amounts covered by Ext.P2 order, as modified by Ext.P7 order, before the expiry of the time limit prescribed for filing the appeal is unfair. Hence the writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

Ext.P7 appellate order is passed on 19/02/2018. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 appellate order has been served on the petitioner along with Ext.P8 demand only on 23/02/2018. The amount directed to be paid in terms of Ext.P8 demand is Rs.19,66,12,780/-. The petitioner is engaged in banking business. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents concerned to defer further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 appellate order, for a period : 3 : of one month, within which period the petitioner shall prefer appeal challenging the appellate order and obtain interim orders, which they are entitled to.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →