TEH NADAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5465/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037055201826 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 filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Exhibit P3) within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Exhibit P2) shall be deferred. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the stay application and provided interim relief by deferring recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nadapuram Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2015-16, specifically the order for 2015-16 (Exhibit P2). The petitioner filed an appeal (Exhibit P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. Proceedings for the realization of amounts due under the assessment order have been initiated. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions regarding these recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to appropriate directions from the High Court concerning the recovery proceedings initiated by the revenue while an appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts covered by the assessment order (Exhibit P2) while their appeal is pending, and therefore, appropriate directions are necessary. The petitioner relied on the pendency of their appeal and the initiation of recovery proceedings as grounds for seeking relief. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the revenue was represented by its Standing Counsel.

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. 5465 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE NADAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KALLACHI, KOZHIKODE-673506, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.MOHANDAS A. 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. 5465 of 2018 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2011-12 DT.20/12/2016. 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.5465 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.5465/2018 -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 →