THE KONGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2548/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007201202030 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 2nd respondent (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Commissioner was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without undue delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Until such orders were passed, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to proceed with it expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kongad 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 had initiated recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to prevent coercive steps during the pendency of their stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appellate and stay petition proceedings by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on the stay application and stay further recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings were being initiated prematurely, even while their stay petition was pending before the appellate authority, causing them prejudice. They sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application and a stay on coercive steps. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned standing counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions 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 THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 10TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2548 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: THE KONGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.P 538, KONGAD POST, PALAKKAD-678 631, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHYLA K., AGED 55, D/O. C.GANGADHARAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-670 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 021. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.2548 OF 2020(P) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.2548 of 2020 =========================== Dated this the 30th 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, recovery proceedings have been initiated for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 order 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

WP(C).No.2548 OF 2020(P) 3 period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid Ext.P3 stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P1 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.2548 OF 2020(P) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 27.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 7.1.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2020.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →