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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6112/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037702201823 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 stay application (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred. The reasoning was based on the facts and circumstances presented, including the delay and the initiation of recovery proceedings. No specific legal principle was articulated as a ratio decidendi for future cases, as the order was procedural.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Thadukkassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order dated March 15, 2016, for the assessment year 2010-11, issued by the Income Tax Officer (respondent 1). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 2) on March 28, 2016, along with a stay petition on April 4, 2016. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay application. Proceedings for realization of the amounts from the assessment order had already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on a stay petition filed by the assessee, considering the delay in passing orders and the initiation of recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that there has been an undue delay by the second respondent in deciding the stay application (Ext.P3), and recovery proceedings for the disputed amount have already commenced, causing prejudice. The petitioner sought appropriate directions to the second respondent. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but no specific arguments or contentions were detailed in the judgment.

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. 6112 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE THADUKKASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.7/429,, KERALASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD-678641, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAKUMARI M.P. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001. 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. 6112 of 2018 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 15.03.2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2016. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2016. (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6112 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd 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 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. 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 application 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 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.

WPC No.6112/18

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 application 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 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. tgs

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →