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

WP(C)/10356/2015HC KeralaKLHC01056196201531 March 2015Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent must contain reasons for the decision. Furthermore, the recovery steps initiated through the demand notice (Ext.P4) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes orders on the stay petition and communicates the same to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural relief sought by the petitioner regarding the stay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an assessment order dated March 2, 2015, for the assessment year 2012-2013, passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) on March 9, 2015, along with a stay petition. Despite the pending stay petition, the petitioner alleges that recovery steps were initiated through a demand notice dated March 2, 2015, issued by the ITO, for the recovery of amounts confirmed in the assessment order. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the consideration of the 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 stay petition filed by the petitioner, given that recovery steps have been initiated while the appeal and stay petition are pending? The petitioner argued that recovery steps have been initiated prematurely through a demand notice, even before the consideration of their stay petition by the appellate authority. They sought a direction from the High Court to expedite the decision on the stay petition and to keep recovery steps in abeyance until then. The revenue, represented by its standing counsel, did not appear to have made specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the stay petition or the writ petition. The focus of the proceedings was on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition and the initiation of recovery steps.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

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 TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2015/10TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10356 of 2015 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- PERINTHALMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., OOTY ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

BY SRI.K.ANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR-676 101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE.

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

WP(C).No. 10356 of 2015 (T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 02/03/2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09/03/2015. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 08/03/2015. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 02/03/2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ................................................. W.P.(C) No.10356 of 2015 (T) ............................................... Dated this the 31st day of March, 2015 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012 - 2013, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the consideration of the stay petition by the 2nd respondent, recovery steps have been initiated against him through Ext.P4 demand notice, for recovery of the amounts confirmed in the assessment order. 2. I have heard Sri.K.Anand, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, preferred by the petitioner before him, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent shall contain reasons for the decision arrived at by him.

W.P.(C) No.10356 of 2015 (T) 2 Recovery steps initiated through Ext.P4 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 2nd respondent passes orders, as directed, in Ext.P3 stay petition, and communicates the same to the petitioner. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE AMV/01/04/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →