M/S. KODUNGALLUR TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.R.1353 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/2404/2020HC KeralaKLHC01006867202029 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the stay applications (Exts. P3(a) & P4(a)) filed by the petitioner. The appellate authority was instructed to pass orders on these applications without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay applications, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeals themselves, focusing solely on the interim relief concerning recovery proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kodungallur Taluk Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner's grievance was that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of disputed amounts, despite the pendency of stay petitions filed along with their appeals. The petitioner had filed appeals (Exts. P3 & P4) and stay petitions (Exts. P3(a) & P4(a)) against orders (Exts. P1 & P2). The assessing authority is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thrissur, and the appellate authority is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether coercive recovery proceedings can be initiated for disputed amounts during the pendency of stay petitions before the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings should not be initiated while their stay applications are pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner relied on the principle that such actions would render the appellate process nugatory. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding this issue. The core of the dispute revolves around the timing and propriety of recovery actions in light of pending appeals and stay applications.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2404 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: M/S. KODUNGALLUR TALUK PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.R.1353 KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 664, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.SHOUKATHALI.K.K. BY ADVS. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), THRISSUR-680 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.2404 OF 2020(A) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2404 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 & P2 orders, the petitioner has filed Exts.P3 & P4 appeals and Exts.P3(a) & P4(a) stay petitions. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petitions, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts. 2. Heard Smt.Nisha John, 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 2 nd respondent shall take up the matters in Exts.P3(a) & P4(a) stay applications filed in Exts.P3 & P4 appeals and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those applications

WP(C).No.2404 OF 2020(A) 3 without much delay, 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 applications, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned 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.2404 OF 2020(A) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 FOR AY-2012-13 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 15.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2012-13. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY- 2012-13 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 15.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2012-13. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →