RAMAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/15831/2016HC KeralaKLHC01063255201626 April 2016Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext. P4) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext. P2) shall be kept in abeyance until the 1st respondent passes orders on the stay petition. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's grievance that recovery was being pursued prematurely. The operative direction is to expedite the decision on the stay petition and maintain status quo on recovery until then. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramapuram Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had received an assessment order (Ext. P2) for the assessment year 2008-09 from the Income Tax Officer (2nd respondent). Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext. P3) and a stay petition (Ext. P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent). The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being pursued even before the stay petition was considered. The assessment order was dated February 23, 2016, and the appeal and stay petition were filed on March 15, 2016.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext. P4) filed by the petitioner within a specified period. 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext. P2) should be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is decided. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being initiated for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order even before the stay petition was considered by the appellate authority. The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to decide the stay petition promptly. Revenue's Contention: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/6TH VAISAKHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 15831 of 2016 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- RAMAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, RAMAPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 321, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE -673 001.

2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR - 676 101.

BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

WP(C).No. 15831 of 2016 (D) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 5.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM.

P2 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2008-09.

P3 : COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 15.03.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2008-09.

P4 : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15.3.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.15831 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of April 2016 JUDGMENT Against Ext. P2 assessment order for the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition before the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are sought to be pursued for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext. P2 assessment order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. In view of the above, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE sm/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →