THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F1213, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2412/2020HC KeralaKLHC01006840202029 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the 2nd respondent) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2) and pass orders on it without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather ensured a procedural progression and interim protection.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Sreekrishnapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner's grievance was that despite filing an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against an order (Ext.P1), the assessing authority initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to prevent these recovery actions while their stay petition was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether coercive recovery proceedings can be initiated by the assessing authority during the pendency of a stay petition filed against the impugned order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance until a decision is made on their stay application, as initiating such steps while the appeal and stay petition are pending would defeat the purpose of the appeal and the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the initiation of coercive recovery proceedings during the pendency of the stay petition. The revenue was represented by a standing counsel, but their arguments on this specific point 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2412 OF 2020(B) PETITIONER: THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F1213, SREEKRISHNAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD-679 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ULLAS KUMAR C, AGED 38, S/O PADMAVATHI AMMA. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 021. 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.2412 OF 2020(B) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2412 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 29th 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.Harisankar V.Menon, 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 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, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this

WP(C).No.2412 OF 2020(B) 3 judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid stay application, 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.2412 OF 2020(B) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 23.12.2019 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2012-13 DATED 18.1.2020 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.1.2020

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →