THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F.1086, vs. THE ADDL/JOINT/DY/ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/19298/2022HC KeralaKLHC01039630202215 June 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent is further directed to pass orders on the Ext.P4 stay application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. These directions are to be complied with within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that any recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The Court clarified that if the delay is not condoned, there will be no requirement to pass a separate order on the stay application, and recovery proceedings can proceed. The principle established is that appellate authorities should expeditiously consider delay condonation and stay applications, and recovery should be stayed pending such consideration, subject to the delay being condoned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kanhikulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal challenging an order marked as Ext.P1. This appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and a stay petition. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala apprehending recovery proceedings while their appeal was pending adjudication. The respondents are various Income Tax authorities, including the National E-Assessment Centre and the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The case involves a procedural challenge concerning the pending appeal and stay application before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) should consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against Ext.P1? 2. If the delay is condoned, whether the 2nd respondent should consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P4) after providing a hearing? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the appellate authority to consider their delay condonation and stay applications, apprehending recovery proceedings before the appeal is decided. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments are recorded for the revenue regarding the merits of the appeal or the stay application, but they were present and heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 19298 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F.1086, KANJIKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AJITHKUMAR K. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDL/JOINT/DY/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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 014. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W. P (C) No.19298/2022 -2- J U D G M E N T The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging Ext.P1 along with an application for condonation of delay and a stay petition. The petitioner has approached this court apprehending recovery proceedings pending adjudication of the appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and if delay is condoned to pass orders on Ext.P4 stay application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This be done within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time orders are passed on Ext.P4 stay application any recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. I make it clear that in the event of the delay not being condoned there will be no requirement of passing any separate order on the stay application and in such event there will no interdiction in proceeding with the recovery of amounts under Ext.P1. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG

W. P (C) No.19298/2022 -3- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19298/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.9.2021 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.5.2022 Exhibit P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20-05-2022 Exhibit P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.5.2022 Exhibit P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8- 06-2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →