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

WP(C)/6530/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038120201827 February 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 petition (Exhibit P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay petition, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the assessment order (Exhibit P1) shall be deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Koduvayur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by an assessment order (Exhibit P1) for the assessment year 2015-16, passed by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner filed an appeal (Exhibit P2) before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with a stay petition (Exhibit P3). The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay petition. Proceedings for realization of the amounts demanded in the assessment order have already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay petition expeditiously, considering the initiation of recovery proceedings by the revenue? The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay petition is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have commenced. They sought directions for an early decision. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for expeditious disposal of the stay petition.

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 TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6530 of 2018 PETITIONER THE KODUVAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD - 678 521, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, KRISHNAKUMARI. A 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 - 678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6530 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6530 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2018

J U D G M E N T

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 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.6530 of 2018 : 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 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 rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →