KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/1611/2020HC KeralaKLHC01004681202021 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 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is challenging an order (Ext.P1). Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's primary grievance is that despite the pendency of the stay petition, the assessing authority has initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The case came before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appellate and stay proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by directing the expeditious disposal of the stay application and a stay on coercive recovery. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated while their stay petition is pending, causing prejudice. They sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application and a stay on further recovery until the stay petition is decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

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.1611 OF 2020(B) PETITIONER: KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED KARUVANNUR P.O. THRISSUR-680 711, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR T.R. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN SHRI.RAJATH R NATH SMT.G.REMADEVI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAM 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.1611 OF 2020(B) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.1611 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 without much delay,

WP(C).No.1611 OF 2020(B) 3 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.1611 OF 2020(B) 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 17.1.2020 AGAINST EXT. P1 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.1.2020 IN EXT. P1 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →