INCHAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.R197 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/1585/2020HC KeralaKLHC01004672202021 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in the interest of justice, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The court mandated that the Commissioner shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing orders on the stay application. The court further stipulated that these orders should be passed without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order are to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide on the merits of the underlying appeal or the validity of the Ext.P1 order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Inchakundu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against this order. The petitioner's primary grievance is that despite the pending stay petition, the assessing authority has initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking intervention in this matter. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether coercive recovery proceedings can be initiated for the disputed amounts during the pendency of a stay petition filed against the impugned order? The assessee (petitioner) contended that coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority while their stay petition is pending before the appellate authority. The assessee's argument implicitly suggests that such action is premature or improper. The revenue (respondents) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the initiation of recovery proceedings during the pendency of the stay petition. The court's decision is based on the facts presented and the need for a just resolution.

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.1585 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER: INCHAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.R197, MUPLIYAM, THRISSUR 680 312 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE K.A JAICY BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.G.REMADEVI SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN SHRI.RAJATH R NATH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR PIN 680 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001 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.1585 OF 2020(W) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.1585 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition. 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 stay application filed in Ext.P2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on that application

WP(C).No.1585 OF 2020(W) 3 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 application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order 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.1585 OF 2020(W) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25-10-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17-01- 2020 AGAINST EXT.P1 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17-01-2020 IN EXT P1 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →