ANAMANGAD SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/21819/2015HC KeralaKLHC01067657201521 July 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the stay petition (Ext.P5) after issuing notice to the petitioner. This consideration is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a final decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner are to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the 2nd respondent for further action. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the penalty notices.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anamangad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13, passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner had also filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent), along with a stay petition. The writ petition was filed seeking directions regarding the appeal and stay petition. The assessment order and penalty notices under Sections 271B and 271F were issued on March 2, 2015. The appeal and stay petition were filed subsequently.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the appellate authority, and what directions should be issued regarding the disposal of the stay petition? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, sought directions for the expeditious disposal of its stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner relied on the pendency of the appeal and stay petition as the basis for approaching the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The learned Government Pleader appeared for the respondents. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2015/30TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 21819 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANAMANGAD SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679357, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR-676101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE-673001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

WP(C).No. 21819 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2.3.2015. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271B DATED 2.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271F DATED 2.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 2.3.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 21819 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2015 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 assessment order for the year 2012-13 passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal along with Ext.P5 petition for stay against the said order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 after issuing notice to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a final decision is taken as directed above, all the coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →