UZHAMALACKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6319/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037909201826 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 order dated February 26, 2018, disposed of the writ petition. The judgment does not contain any detailed analysis of the facts or the legal arguments presented by the parties. Consequently, the specific findings on any issues, the reasoning behind them, or the ratio decidendi are not recorded. There are no operative directions such as remand or deletion mentioned. The judgment does not indicate any issue being left undecided. The outcome of the writ petition, as reflected in the disposal, is not elaborated upon in terms of merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Uzhamalackal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the actions of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary. The respondents are the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Thiruvananthapuram, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(I/C). The writ petition was filed seeking appropriate directions against the revenue authorities. 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 stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief by way of a writ petition. The petitioner, M/s. Uzhamalackal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., likely sought to challenge an adverse order or action by the Income Tax Department. The specific grounds for challenge and the legal provisions relied upon by the petitioner are not detailed in the provided text. The revenue, represented by Sri. Christopher Abraham, Income Tax Department, would have presented its arguments in opposition to the writ petition. The judgment does not record the specific contentions of either party or any authorities, circulars, or precedents they may have relied upon. The questions of law or mixed law and fact that the court had to decide are also not explicitly framed.

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. 6319 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. UZHAMALACKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.T.298 PUTHUKULANGARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ASHA K.S. BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU SRI.K.P.KESAVAN NAIR SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 4. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(I/C) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, 1ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. 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. 6319 of 2018 (L) 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.AAAAU2695Q DATED 18-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AAAAU2695Q 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 23-12-2017 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 AGAINST EXT P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23-12-2017 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.AAAAU2695Q DATED 18-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN F NO.AAAAU2695Q DATED 18-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 10-2-2018 IN EXT P3 APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 10-2-2018 IN EXT P3(A) APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO/AAAAU2695Q/ITO.W 2(3)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 9-2-2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 6319 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 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 W.P. (c) No.6319/2018 -2- 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 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. SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →