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

WP(C)/3029/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008670202005 February 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances, ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II) shall take up the stay application (Ext.P-2(a)) filed in the appeal (Ext.P-2). The 2nd respondent was directed 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 are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself but directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paravoor Vadakkekara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P-2) and a stay petition (Ext.P-2(a)) against an order (Ext.P-1). The petitioner's primary grievance is that despite the pendency of the stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II (the 2nd respondent), the assessing authority (the 1st respondent) initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The case came before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority by directing the disposal of the stay petition and halting coercive recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive recovery proceedings were initiated during the pendency of their stay petition before the appellate authority, which is causing prejudice. They sought a direction for the speedy disposal of the stay petition and a stay on further recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but their specific contentions are not detailed. However, the court heard both sides.

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 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3029 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: PARAVOOR VADAKKEKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NEENDOOR, VADAKKEKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 522, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE K.S.JAIZY. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, ALUVA. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, 28/243, “POORNIMA”, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION , PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3029 of 2020 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th 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 Smt.Nisha John, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, 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. 3029 / 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. 3029 / 2020 ..4.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE 31.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY- 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 23.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017- 18 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →