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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6829/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038419201801 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The judgment does not record any specific findings or decisions by the High Court on the merits of the case. The provided text is an admission order for the writ petition. Therefore, the High Court has not yet decided the issues raised. The operative direction, if any, is not discernible from this excerpt. No issue was expressly left undecided as the matter was admitted for further hearing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Velanthavalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Income Tax Department. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5, Palakkad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. 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?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order or action of the Income Tax Department by way of a writ petition before the High Court, considering the availability of alternative remedies. This issue turns on the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, implicitly argues that the circumstances warrant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, possibly due to a lack of efficacious alternative remedy or a violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), would likely contend that the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available, such as filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) or other appropriate forums, and therefore, a writ petition is not maintainable.

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. 6829 of 2018 ---------------------- PETITIONER : ---------- THE VELANTHAVALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 8/8.OZHALAPATHY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678557, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SURESHKUMAR K 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 01/03/2018 WP(C).No. 6829 of 2018 (C) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 19/12/2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1/2/2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp 01/3/2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6829 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

WPC 6829/18 directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →