CHEKKIAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5422/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037012201826 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 stated that until orders are passed on the application for stay, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the stay application. No specific issues were decided on the merits of the assessment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chekkiad 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 second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While the appeal was pending, the petitioner also filed an application for stay. The petitioner alleges that recovery proceedings have already been initiated for the amounts demanded in the assessment order. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions regarding these proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to appropriate directions from the High Court regarding the recovery proceedings initiated by the revenue while an appeal and stay application are pending before the appellate authority? The petitioner's contention is that recovery proceedings are being initiated despite the pendency of an appeal and a stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner seeks directions to defer these recovery proceedings. The revenue's contention is not recorded in the judgment.

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. 5422 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) CHEKKIAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED:F 1657 P.O.CHEKKIAD; VIA PARAKKADAVU, KOZHIKODE 673 509, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. SANEESH KUMAR K. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), 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. 5422 of 2018 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 20.12.2016 OF M/S.NADAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. FOR 2011.12 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.5422 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.

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

W.P. (c) No.5422/2018 -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 →