M/S. MADAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/34344/2017HC KeralaKLHC01082289201727 October 2017Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner. The Court further directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the second respondent in the appeal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent for further action. The Court noted the submission that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court but proceeded to grant interim relief by directing expeditious disposal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Madappally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. It was submitted that 50% of the demand raised by the assessment order had already been paid. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla, is the first respondent. The writ petition was filed seeking directions regarding the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, given that recovery steps are being pursued based on the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, represented by its Secretary, sought an expeditious disposal of its appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority. They highlighted that a significant portion of the demand had already been paid. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents indicated that the issue involved in the appeal was pending consideration before the Supreme Court. The revenue did not explicitly argue against the expeditious disposal but highlighted the pendency of a related matter at a higher judicial forum.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/5TH KARTHIKA, 1939 WP(C).No. 34344 of 2017 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- M/S. MADAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PERUMPANACHI.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MRS. HANSAMMA PHILIP.

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR (MALLYA) KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA-689 101 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM-686 001

R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts

WP(C).No. 34344 of 2017 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 P2 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/1/2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P5 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.34344 OF 2017 (P) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2017 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P5 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 50% of the demand confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order has already been paid. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Taking note of the submission of the learned Standing counsel for the respondents that the issue involved in the appeal is now pending consideration before the Supreme Court, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as

W.P.(C).No.34344/2017

orders are passed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal, as directed, and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/27/10/17

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →