QUILANDY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED: QUILANDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD 2(1): KOZHIKODE: 673 001

WP(C)/5431/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037021201826 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, 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 also ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the assessment order for 2015-16 shall be deferred. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the assessment orders themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Quilandy Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, passed by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and also an application for stay. Proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the assessment order for 2015-16 have been initiated. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking appropriate directions regarding these proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions regarding the pending appeal and stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that realization proceedings have commenced for the disputed amounts while their appeal and stay application are pending before the appellate authority. They sought directions from the High Court to address this situation. 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. 5431 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) QUILANDY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED: QUILANDY 673 305 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.K.A.AJAY KUMAR BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD 2(1): KOZHIKODE: 673 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE 673 001. 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. 5431 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2014-15 DT. 23/12/2016 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2015-16 DT. 27/12/2017 EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5431 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.5431/2018 -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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →