ULLIYERI SERVICE CO:OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED: ULLIYERI: QUILANDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER: WARD 2(1): KOZHIIKODE: 673 001

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5464/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037054201826 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 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exhibit P4 appeal 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 amounts covered by Exhibit P3 assessment order shall be deferred. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ulliyeri Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16, marked as Exhibit P3. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with an application for stay. The petitioner alleges that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts covered by the assessment order. The present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions from the High Court regarding these proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions regarding the recovery proceedings initiated by the revenue while an appeal and stay application are pending before the appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery proceedings have been initiated for amounts covered by the assessment order (Exhibit P3) despite an appeal (Exhibit P4) and a stay application being filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). They seek appropriate directions from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the revenue is represented by its Standing Counsel, indicating their presence and participation in the proceedings.

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. 5464 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) ULLIYERI SERVICE CO:OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED: ULLIYERI: QUILANDY 673 620 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.MONCY VARGHESE BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER: WARD 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. 5464 of 2018 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT IN ITA 545 TO 547/COCH/2014 DT.20/7/2016 FOR 2008.09, 2009.10 AND 2010.11 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FORT 2014.15 DT. 23/12/2016 EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2015-16 DT.28/12/2017 EXHIBIT P4 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.5464 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.P3 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. After the institution of the writ petition, it stated that the petitioner preferred an application for stay in Ext.P4 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.P3 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.P4 appeal,

W.P. (c) No.5464/2018 -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.P3 assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →