PALODE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/2980/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008466202004 February 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 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take up the stay application (Ext.P-2(a)) filed in the appeal (Ext.P-2). The appellate authority was instructed to pass orders on the stay application without much delay, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Until orders were passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned order 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 expedite the process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Palode Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner's grievance was that despite filing an appeal (Ext.P-2) and a stay petition (Ext.P-2(a)) against an order (Ext.P-1), the assessing authority initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition sought intervention to prevent recovery actions during the pendency of the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in pending appellate and stay proceedings by directing the expeditious disposal of the stay application and staying coercive recovery steps. The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated prematurely, while their appeal and stay application were pending before the appellate authority. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the interim relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. The primary issue was the balance between the revenue's right to recover dues and the assessee's right to have their appeal and stay petition considered without prejudice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2980 OF 2020(V) PETITIONER: M/S.PALODE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.T-862, KUSAVOOR, KARIMANCODE PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695562. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.VAIJU KUMAR R. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2 (1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. SRI..JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2980 of 2020 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2020 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P-1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P-2 appeal and Ext.P-2(a) 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.V.P.Narayanan, 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 2nd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P-2(a) stay application filed in Ext.P-2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorised representative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks

W.P.(C).No. 2980 / 2020 ..3.. 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. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG

W.P.(C).No. 2980 / 2020 ..4.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2019 FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 17.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 17.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY-2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017- 18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →