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

WP(C)/34378/2017HC KeralaKLHC01082323201727 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. Furthermore, the Court directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed by the second respondent in the appeal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the writ petition and the judgment before the second respondent for further action. The judgment does not record any specific finding on the merits of the appeal itself, as it was disposed of based on the procedural direction.

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 the Assessment Year 2010-11. The petitioner had filed 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, was the first respondent. The High Court was approached for 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 expeditiously consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order for AY 2010-11, and whether recovery steps should be kept in abeyance until such orders are passed. The petitioner sought a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal and a stay on recovery. The revenue, through its Standing Counsel, did not object to the expeditious disposal of the appeal, noting that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the stay on recovery, other than their submission about the Supreme Court's consideration of the issue.

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. 34378 of 2017 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M/S. MADAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PERUPANACHI 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): --------------

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA-686101.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM-686001.

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

WP(C).No. 34378 of 2017 (V) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT DATED 20.3.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.13.5.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL

TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE EL

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.34378 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.34378/2017

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 →