PARIYARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BNAK LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/1553/2020HC KeralaKLHC01004554202021 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed the 2nd respondent (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay applications (Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a)) filed in connection with the appeals (Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a)). The Commissioner was instructed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to pass orders on these stay applications without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay applications, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned orders (Exts.P1 & P1(a)) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeals or the stay applications themselves, as the court was addressing the procedural aspect of the pending applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pariyaram Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed appeals (Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a)) and stay petitions (Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a)) against orders Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a). The petitioner's primary grievance is that the assessing authority initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts while the stay petitions were pending. The case was heard by the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appeal and stay petition process by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on the stay applications and to keep coercive recovery proceedings in abeyance until then. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated prematurely, during the pendency of their stay petitions before the appellate authority, causing prejudice. They sought a direction for the appellate authority to decide the stay applications expeditiously and to halt recovery actions in the interim. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments from the revenue are detailed in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 1ST MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1553 OF 2020(T) PETITIONER: PARIYARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680721, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. DENNY M.V. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), THRISSUR RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.1553 OF 2020(T) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.1553 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a) orders, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) appeals and Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) stay petitions. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts. 2. Heard Sri.K.S.Hariharan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) stay applications filed in Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) appeals and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner

WP(C).No.1553 OF 2020(T) 3 through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid stay applications, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned Exts.P1 & P1(a) orders will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd

WP(C).No.1553 OF 2020(T) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 04/01/2020 AGAINST EXT. P1. EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 04/01/2020 AGAINST EXT.P1(A). EXHIBIT P3 COY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/01/2020 IN EXT.P1 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/01/2020 IN EXT. P1(A) APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →