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

WP(C)/5583/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037173201820 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available in the form of a further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court emphasized that in the presence of such statutory remedies, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be entertained. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. No specific issues regarding the merits of the income tax assessment were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kanjikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Palakkad, and the subsequent order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the writ petition involves an initial order from the Income Tax Officer and an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the availability of alternative remedies. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner likely argued that the writ petition is maintainable due to specific circumstances or defects in the proceedings, possibly implying that the alternative remedy is not efficacious or that there are grounds for interference by the High Court directly. The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's detailed arguments regarding the merits of the case or the specific grounds for challenging the orders. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, the Income Tax Department, likely contended that a writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

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 TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5583 of 2018 PETITIONER THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD KANJIKODE.P.O. PALAKKAD- 678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.PRAMODH. 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.1, PALAKKAD- 678 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THRISSUR- 680 001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 5583 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST

RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 24.3.2016 EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11

ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.7.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE

THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.4.2016 EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE

THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.7.2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.4.2016 EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.7.2017 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5583 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018

JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The self assessment made by the petitioner for the year 2010-’11 has been revised by the first respondent in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act as per Ext.P1 order. Later, Ext.P1 order was rectified by the first respondent in exercise of the power under Section 154 of the Act. Ext.P1(a) is the order passed in this connection. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders, the petitioner filed Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals. Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in the said appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the appellate authority in taking a decision on Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals. It is alleged by the petitioner that steps have already been

WPC 5583/2018 :2:- taken for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) 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, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed on Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P1 (a) orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 20/2 /True Copy/ PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →