EDACHERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5439/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037029201826 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the application for stay preferred by the petitioner 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 application, further proceedings for the realization of the amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay application. The principle here is that a stay application should be considered expeditiously, and recovery should be deferred pending its decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Edacheri Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 28, 2017 (Ext.P2). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ext.P3) and also an application for stay of demand. The petitioner alleges that recovery proceedings have already been initiated for the amounts covered by the assessment order. The writ petition seeks appropriate directions from the High Court regarding these proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions for the expeditious disposal of the stay application filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts covered by the assessment order, and therefore, the High Court should intervene and direct the disposal of the stay application. The assessee relied on the fact that an appeal and a stay application were pending before the appellate authority. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the assessee. The revenue was represented by a Standing Counsel, but their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

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 MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5439 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) EDACHERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, EDACHERI, KOZHIKODE-673502, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. NIDEESH. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), KOZHIKODE-673001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE-673001. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5439 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE IN ITA 396 & 397/2015-16 DT. 16.05.2017 FOR 2013-14 & 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2015-16 DT. 28.12.2017. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT. P3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5439 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th 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.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent. After the institution of the writ petition, it stated that the petitioner preferred an application for stay in Ext.P3 appeal. 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 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

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 the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal,

W.P. (c) No.5439/2018 -2- 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 the application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →