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

WP(C)/16047/2022HC KeralaKLHC01032174202217 May 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while considering the submissions of both parties, opined that the writ petition itself could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The principle established is that appellate authorities should endeavor to decide stay petitions expeditiously to prevent prejudice to the assessee, and courts may intervene to ensure such consideration and to maintain status quo pending the decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Ariyur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2013-2014, marked as Ext.P1. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Ext.P2), and a petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P3). The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings before their stay petition is considered, leading to the filing of this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The respondents are the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, and the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of their stay petition before coercive proceedings are initiated against them, given the pendency of their appeal against the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they have filed an appeal against the assessment order and a stay petition, and they apprehend coercive recovery actions before the stay petition is adjudicated. Therefore, they sought a direction from the Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents. However, the Court considered the submissions of both the petitioner and the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.C.No.16047/2022 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. 16047 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 RESPONDENTS: 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.16047/2022 2 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2013-2014, 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.16047/2022 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16047/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 30.03.2022. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →