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

WP(C)/5720/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037310201821 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 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay applications (Ext.P3 series) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay applications. The principle established is that the High Court can direct expeditious disposal of pending appeals and stay petitions by appellate authorities when there is undue delay and potential prejudice to the assessee, particularly when recovery proceedings are initiated.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mannarkkad Rural Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16, issued by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) along with stay applications. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. Proceedings for recovery of the amounts demanded in the assessment orders have already been initiated.

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 of mandamus? (Question of procedure and administrative delay) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay applications is causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific contention against the petitioner's plea for a direction, but was represented by counsel.

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. 5720 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MANNARKKAD RURAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 8/767, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PURUSHOTHAMAN.M., BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARDNO.2., PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001. 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. 5720 of 2018 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATE 21/3/2016 EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDR ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATE 22/12/2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. DATE 28/4/2016 EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. DATE 17/1/2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. DATE 22/4/2016 EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.9/1/2018 // true copy // PS TO JUDGE Kvs/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5720 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 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. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

WPC.No.5720 of 2018

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. Kvs/- // true copy //

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →