THE ARIYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/16044/2022HC KeralaKLHC01032172202217 May 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the submissions of both parties, found that the writ petition itself could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The principle derived is that expeditious consideration of stay petitions in tax matters, coupled with a stay on coercive measures pending such consideration, is a matter of procedural fairness.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Ariyur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2015-2016, marked as Ext.P1. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this assessment order before the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi), which is produced as Ext.P2. Concurrently, a petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has been filed as Ext.P3. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery proceedings before their stay petition is considered and has therefore filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of their stay petition pending before the appellate authority? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that they apprehend coercive proceedings before their stay petition is considered by the appellate authority and seeks a direction for its timely disposal. The petitioner relies on the general principle that recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance until a decision on the stay application is made. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and National Faceless Appeal Centre).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.C.No.16044/2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 16044 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE ARIYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F1566, 7/505, KOTTOPADAM, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, 678 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.P. KARTHIAYANI. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI 110 001. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.C.No.16044/2022 2 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2015-2016, petitioner has preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. Petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition. 2. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction. 3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/17.5.22

W.P.C.No.16044/2022 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16044/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →