MUNDELA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6195/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037785201823 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

As the provided text is a cause title for a writ petition and does not contain the operative part of a judgment or order, there is no decision or holding by the Tribunal to report. The text does not mention any findings on specific issues, reasoning, ratio decidendi, or operative directions. Consequently, no issue was left undecided, and no relief was granted or denied.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mundela Service Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are various income tax authorities, including the Income Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, and the Principal Commissioner. The writ petition challenges an order or action taken by these authorities. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The provided text is a cause title for a writ petition and does not contain any issues that the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it record any arguments from the petitioner or the revenue. Therefore, no questions of law or fact, provisions of the Income Tax Act, or authorities/precedents relied upon by either side can be identified from this excerpt.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA NO.361/COH/2016

W.P.(C).No.6195 of 2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6195 of 2018 PETITIONER MUNDELA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.2433 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, MUNDELA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-695543. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(3), KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD 2(3), KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM-695003. 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM-695003. BY STANDING COUNSEL:SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6195 of 2018 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD ISSUED BY THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) NEDUMANGAD DATED 13-03-2014. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 30-03-2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 26-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 30-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 30-03-2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 26-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 30-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL AY 2008-09 DATED 02-05-2014 FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL AY 2013-14 DATED 31-03-2016 FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL AY 2014-15 DATED 31-01-2017 FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 02-05-2014 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 31-03-2016 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 07-09-2017 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FOR AYS 2008-09, 2013-14 AND 2014-15 DATED 07-09-2017 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON REVIEW PETITION DATED 07-02-2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.361/COH/2016 DATED 18-11-2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// Sd/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6195 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd 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 Exts.P2 to P4 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P8 to P10 appeals before the third respondent. Exts.P11 to P13 are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P8 to P10 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the third respondent in passing orders on Exts.P11 to P13 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 Exts.P2 to P4 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.6195 of 2018 : 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 third respondent to take a decision on Exts.P11 to P13 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 Exts.P11 to P13 applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 to P4 assessment orders shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →