THE VAMANAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 927 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5978/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037568201822 February 20183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its order dated February 22, 2018, did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The judgment does not record any specific findings on the issues raised or the arguments presented by either the petitioner or the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition without delving into the substantive grounds of challenge. Therefore, no principle can be extracted as a ratio decidendi for future cases based on the merits of the dispute. The issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order/action through a writ petition was implicitly addressed by the disposal of the petition, suggesting that the Court may have found it appropriate to do so or that the matter was resolved otherwise.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Vamanapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 927, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 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, other than the fact that the petitioner is approaching the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order/action of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the availability of alternative remedies. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, a co-operative bank, is seeking to challenge the actions of the revenue authorities. The specific grounds for challenge are not detailed in the provided text. Revenue's Contention: The revenue authorities are likely to argue that a writ petition is not maintainable as alternative remedies, such as an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), are available to the petitioner. This argument would typically be based on the principle of alternative remedy, which discourages the High Court from entertaining writ petitions when statutory remedies exist.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 5978 of 2018
WP(C) NO.33532 OF 2017

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5978 of 2018 ---------------------- PETITIONER ----------- THE VAMANAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 927 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAMANAPURAM PO, THIRUANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN.695606 BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695003 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695003 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V.

WP(C).No. 5978 of 2018 (V) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 24.11.2016 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2016 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 24.11.2017 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL AGAINST EXT.P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH CHALAN DATED 5.12.2017 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL AGAINST EXT.P4 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH CHALAN DATED 05.12.2017 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AAAAV3572B/ITO/W2(3)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 9.2.2018 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10.2.2018 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.2.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P9 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT.P4 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10.2.2018 EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.2.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P11 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2017 IN WP(C) NO.33532 OF 2017 EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN ITA NO.22/TVM/CIT(A)TVM/2015-16 DATED 08.11.2017 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------- /TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 24.02.2018

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ......................................... W.P.(C).No.5978 of 2018 .......................................... Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2018. JUDGMENT In the light of Ext.P14 order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner moved an appeal before the same authority. In that appeal, the petitioner also moved an application for stay. 2. In the light of the above, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application for stay in the light of Ext.P13 order of this Court as well as Ext.P14 order passed by the same authority within a period of two months. Till the disposal of the application as above, all coercive steps pursuant to the assessment order shall be deferred. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE. cl

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →