KALLAMKUNNU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/2772/2020HC KeralaKLHC01007927202031 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in the interest of justice, directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) filed in the appeal (Ext.P2). The Court ordered that the Commissioner shall pass orders on the stay application 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 will be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the validity of the impugned order itself, but focused on ensuring that the stay petition is considered promptly and that recovery is stalled in the interim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kallamkunnu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, 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 the recovery of disputed amounts, despite the pendency of a stay petition filed along with an appeal against an order (Ext.P1). The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against the impugned order. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition was filed seeking to prevent further coercive recovery steps until the stay petition was disposed of.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the coercive recovery proceedings initiated by the assessing authority are valid during the pendency of a stay petition filed along with an appeal against the impugned order? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the impact of pending appeals on recovery actions). The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings should not be initiated while a stay petition is pending before the appellate authority. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

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.2772 OF 2020(V) PETITIONER/S: KALLAMKUNNU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. R. 314, KALLAMKUNNU P.O. NADAVARAMBA, THRISSUR 680 661, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. GANESH C.K. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.G.REMADEVI SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN SHRI.RAJATH R NATH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, 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.2772 OF 2020(V) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 2772 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. 2. Heard Sri.K.S.Hariharan Nair, 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 those applications 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

WP(C).No.2772 OF 2020(V) 3 will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS

WP(C).No.2772 OF 2020(V) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 04.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 21.01.2020 AGAINST EXT. P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.01.2020 IN EXT. P1 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →