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

WP(C)/34377/2017HC KeralaKLHC01082322201727 October 2017Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala 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. Furthermore, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were directed to be kept in abeyance until orders were passed by the second respondent in the appeal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather directed its expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Madapally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 27, 2015, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner stated that 50% of the demand raised by the assessment order had already been paid. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla, was the first respondent. The writ petition sought directions regarding the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, and if so, what directions should be issued regarding recovery steps pending the appeal's disposal. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought expeditious disposal of their appeal and stay petition before the second respondent. They also highlighted that a significant portion of the demand had already been paid. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue involved in the appeal was pending consideration before the Supreme Court. No other specific arguments were recorded for the revenue.

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. 34377 of 2017 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- M/S. MADAPALLY 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.686101.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM.

BY ADV. 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: K.V.

WP(C).No. 34377 of 2017 (V) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: -------------------- P1; TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.3.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. P2; TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. P3; TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4; TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------- /TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.34377 OF 2017 (V) ----------------------------------- 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.34377/2017

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 →