THE PALAKKAD CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2696/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007610202031 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court ordered that the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), shall take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Commissioner is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass an order on the stay application without much delay, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until an order is passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but directed its expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Palakkad Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner's grievance is that despite filing an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against an order (Ext.P1), the assessing authority has initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary, T.R. Sumathy. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Palakkad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. The writ petition was filed seeking intervention against these recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by directing the disposal of the stay petition and staying coercive recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated during the pendency of their appeal and stay petition, causing prejudice. They seek a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and a stay on further recovery until a decision is rendered. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the court heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 11TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2696 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: THE PALAKKAD CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED NO. F 1078, CHITTUR ROAD, KUNNATHURMEDU.P.O., PALAKKAD-678013, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.R. SUMATHY BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680021 OTHER PRESENT: SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.2696 OF 2020(J) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 2696 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st 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. Heard Sri. Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 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 order on those application 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 application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance.

WP(C).No.2696 OF 2020(J) 3 With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS

WP(C).No.2696 OF 2020(J) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT -2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →