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

WP(C)/5736/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037326201821 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, 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 principle established is that undue delay in deciding a stay petition, coupled with initiation of recovery proceedings, can be a ground for the High Court to direct expeditious disposal and defer recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Tattamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 20, 2016, for the assessment year 2011-12, issued by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with a stay petition. The grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay petition. The petitioner states that recovery proceedings have already commenced for the amounts demanded in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing an order on the stay petition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ of mandamus? (Question of procedure and administrative delay). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay petition is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have been initiated. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay application. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's standing counsel regarding the delay or the merits of the stay petition.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5736 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD CHITTUR ROAD, METTUPALAYAM, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD-678 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, R.GRACY. 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-680 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 5736 of 2018 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 20.12.2016. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.1.2017. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.2.2016. // true copy // PS TO JUDGE Kvs/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5736 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st 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 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition

WPC.No.5736 of 2018

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. Kvs/- // true copy //

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →