THE CHOMBAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER: WARD 2(2): KOZHIKODE 673 001.

WP(C)/5416/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037006201826 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 preferred by the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of the amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on expediting the decision on the stay application and providing interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Chombal Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P2) for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee had preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) against this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While the writ petition was pending, the assessee also filed an application for stay of demand in the appeal. The petitioner alleged that recovery proceedings had already been initiated for the amounts demanded in the assessment order and sought appropriate directions from the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay application filed by the assessee. The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings were initiated prematurely, causing hardship, and therefore, the stay application needed urgent consideration. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), did not record any specific arguments against this procedural direction 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. 5416 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE CHOMBAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED CHOMBAL P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE; 673 308, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. M.V.JAYAPRAKASH. 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. 5416 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE IN ITA 321/2015-16 DT. 04.05.2017 FOR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2015-16 DT. 26.12.2016 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.5416 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.5416/2018 -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 →