THE NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6095/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037685201823 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in the disposal of stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), directed the 2nd respondent to decide the stay applications within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay applications. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the assessment orders or the stay applications themselves, focusing solely on the procedural delay. The principle derived is that significant procedural delays in appellate proceedings, particularly concerning stay applications where recovery is initiated, can be addressed by the High Court through writ jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Nagaripuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for the years 2013-14 and 2015-16, issued by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) along with stay applications. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the 2nd respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner also states that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts covered by the assessment orders. The writ petition seeks appropriate directions regarding this delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay applications is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific contention in the judgment regarding the delay or the merits of the stay applications. The judgment notes that the Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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. 6095 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NAGARIPURAM, MANNUR, PALAKKAD -678 642, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.V.NANDAKUMARAN. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2, PALAKKAD -678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR -680 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX 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. 6095 of 2018 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 21.03.2016 EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016 EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 11.04.2016 EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.10.01.2018 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================ W.P.(C.) No. 6095 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 Ext.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 series 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 Ext.P1 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(C.) No.6095 of 2018 : 2 : 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 Ext.P3 series 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 Ext.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE SKS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →