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

WP(C)/5744/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037334201821 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the 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 until orders are passed on the stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) shall be deferred. The principle here is that appellate authorities should endeavor to decide stay applications expeditiously, especially when recovery proceedings are initiated, to prevent undue hardship to the assessee. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment orders or the stay applications themselves.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Akathethara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for the years 2010-11 and 2015-16, issued by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner filed appeals before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with applications for stay of demand. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner also stated that proceedings for recovery of the amounts demanded in the assessment orders have already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions for the expeditious disposal of stay applications filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when recovery proceedings have commenced. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay applications, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, is causing prejudice. They sought directions for the disposal of the stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

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. 5744 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. F-1514, AKATHETHARA POST, PALAKKAD-678008, REPRESENTE DBY ITS SECRETARY, SUBHA VARMA 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 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. 5744 of 2018 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL FIELD BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3(A): COPY OF STATE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER // true copy // PS TO JUDGE. Kvs/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5744 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 also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

W.P.(C).No.5744 of 2018

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 →