M/S ALAPPAD PULLU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/679/2018HC KeralaKLHC01032269201809 January 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its order dated January 9, 2018, did not decide the merits of the tax dispute. Instead, the Court considered the maintainability of the writ petition. The judgment indicates that the Court was inclined to direct the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for redressal of their grievances. This suggests that the Court found that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available. The reasoning would likely be based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be invoked when effective alternative remedies exist. The operative direction, if any, would be to dismiss the writ petition and direct the petitioner to pursue their statutory appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Alappad Pullu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., 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 Department. The respondents are the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, as well as the amount in dispute, are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to maintain a writ petition against the actions of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner's contention, implied by the filing of a writ petition, is that there are grounds for judicial review of the tax authorities' actions. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General and a Standing Counsel for Income Tax, would likely argue that the petitioner has alternative remedies available, such as filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) or other statutory avenues, and therefore, a writ petition is not maintainable. The specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or other laws that form the basis of the dispute are not mentioned.

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 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 19TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 679 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S ALAPPAD PULLU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD N 130, P.O. ALAPAD, THRISSUR - 680 641, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR DR.K.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT), DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN TAMPURAN NAGAR, MUNICIPAL OFFICER ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN TAMPURAN NAGAR, MUNICIPAL OFFICER ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001. R2 & R3 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 679 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. AACAA1312J DATED 15-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT, DATED 15-12-2016, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23-01-2017 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 8-9-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT REQUESTING GRANT OF STAY OF THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNTS IN EXT.P2 NOTICE. ( TRUE COPY ) PS TO JUDGE Kvs/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.679 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of January, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent under the Income Tax Act. Ext.P1 is the assessment order of the petitioner for the year 2014-'15. Ext.P1 order has been challenged by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal. Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the petitioner for stay in Ext.P3 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the appellate authority namely, the third respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P4 application for stay. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

WPC.No.679 of 2018

the case as also similar orders passed in identical writ petitions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed on Ext.P4, further proceedings for realisation of the tax pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- // true copy //

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →