MOWANCHERY CO-OPERATRIVE RURAL BANK LTD. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/1772/2015HC KeralaKLHC01047612201520 January 2015Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had an alternative and equally efficacious remedy available under the Income Tax Act, 1961. This remedy would involve filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), if necessary. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedies. No specific issues regarding the merits of any income tax assessment were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mowanchery Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order. The respondents are the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kannur, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode. The specific order or action under challenge and the assessment year(s) are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated upon, other than the fact that it has reached the stage of admission before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to maintain a writ petition. The petitioner likely argued that there were grounds for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, possibly due to a lack of alternative effective remedy or a violation of fundamental rights. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel for Income Tax, would have contended that a writ petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner should pursue the available statutory remedies, such as appeals before the appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific questions of law framed by the parties or the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act that were the subject of contention.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/30TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1772 of 2015 (V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE MOWANCHERY CO-OPERATRIVE RURAL BANK LTD. AABAT4821C, P.O., MOWANCHERY KANNUR-KANNUR -670 613, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VINAYAKUMAR M.N. BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KANNUR AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KANNOTHUMCHAL, CHOVVA, KANNUUR-670006. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, REVENUE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

WP(C).No. 1772 of 2015 (V) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.7000/2012/0 DATED 24.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AABAT4821C DATED 20.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23.12.2014 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 AGAINST EXT.P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. AABAT4821C DATED 20.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.1772 OF 2015 (V) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2015 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P2 assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 3rd respondent Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering Ext.P3 appeal, recovery steps are sought to be pursued for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P2 assessment order. 2. Heard Sri.K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Lilly K.T., the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that insofar as the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent

W.P.(C).No.1772/2015 2 appellate authority, it would be in the interests of justice to direct the 3rd respondent authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner before him, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I note, however, that in this case, substantial amounts have been confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P2 assessment order. Although counsel for the petitioner would point out that a similar issue for the earlier assessment years is pending consideration before this court in Income Tax Appeals that have been filed against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, it is learnt that in all those cases, the petitioner has deposited some amounts during the pendency of the appeals. Thus, in this case also, the petitioner is required to deposit a portion of the demand as a precondition for directing the 3rd respondent appellate authority to dispose the appeal itself on merits. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the tax amounts confirmed against it by Ext.P2 assessment order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. As already noticed, the 3rd respondent shall dispose Ext.P3 appeal, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this

W.P.(C).No.1772/2015 3 judgment. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →