M/S. PALODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 792 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/6505/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038095201827 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment delivered on February 27, 2018, dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Palode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning behind this decision was that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available. The Court found that the petitioner could have approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for redressal of their grievances. Therefore, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy. No specific issue was left undecided; the petition was disposed of on the grounds of alternative remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Palode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 792, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Income Tax Department. The respondents include the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Thiruvananthapuram, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, as well as the amount in dispute, are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to maintain a writ petition against the actions of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner, M/s. Palode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., contended that they had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The specific grounds for this contention and the legal provisions relied upon by the petitioner are not detailed. The Revenue, represented by Sri. Christopher Abraham, argued against the maintainability of the writ petition. The Revenue's specific arguments and any authorities or precedents they relied on are not recorded in the provided text. The core question revolves around the availability of alternative remedies and the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain such a 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. 6505 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S. PALODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 792 CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING, PALODE, KARIMANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 652, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REKHA V.O. BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU SRI.K.P.KESAVAN NAIR SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENTS: 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 4. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) (I/C) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -2, 1ST FLOOR, AYYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 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. 6505 of 2018 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO, AAABAT9742J DATED 15.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. AAABAT9742J DATED 18.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 10.02.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 AGAINST EXT P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 10.02.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 AGAINST EXT P2(A) ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN F. NO.AABAT9742J/ITO.W-2(3)/TVM/2011-12 DATED 15.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN F.NO.AABAT9742J/ITP.W-2(3)/TVM/2015-16 DATED 18.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 10.02.2018 IN EXT.P3 APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 10.02.2018 IN EXT.P3(A) APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. AABAT9742J/ITO.W 2(3)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 09.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6505 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 second respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 series appeals before the third respondent. Ext.P5 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the third respondent in passing orders on Ext.P5 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.P2 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.6505 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 third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 series applications 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.P5 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 series assessment orders shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →