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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6259/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037849201826 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in the disposal of stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), directed the second respondent to pass a decision on the stay applications within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that until orders are passed on the stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders shall be deferred. The principle derived is that inordinate delay in deciding stay applications can be a ground for judicial intervention, and the court can direct expeditious disposal while maintaining the status quo regarding recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mankara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee before the Income Tax Department. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for the years 2010-11 and 2015-16, and a rectification order for 2010-11, issued by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) along with stay petitions. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on the stay applications. The petitioner also states that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts covered by the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in adjudication of their stay petitions before the second respondent is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the delay or the maintainability of the writ petition. However, the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax appeared before the court.

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. 6259 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MANKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. MANKARA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 643, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.BABU. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.1, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX 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. 6259 of 2018 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 24.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.2017. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2017. EXHIBIT P3(B) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2018 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P4(A) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.01.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// sd/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6259 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.P1 series assessment orders and Ext.P2 rectification order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P4 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 second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P4 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.P1 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate

W.P. (c) No. 6259/2018 -2- directions in this regard, in 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 second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 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.P4 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →