MKD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/32812/2023HC KeralaKLHC01072921202313 October 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority with a significant delay of 172 days, no relief could be granted by the High Court directly on the merits of the appeal or stay. However, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (Appellate Authority) to consider and decide the petitioner's application for condonation of delay (Ext.P4) expeditiously, preferably within two months. If the delay is condoned, the Appellate Authority is further directed to take up and decide the stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously. The judgment does not decide the merits of the assessment or the appeal itself, focusing solely on procedural directions for the pending applications before the lower appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, MKD Taluk Government Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The assessment for the assessment year 2020-21 resulted in a demand of Rs. 12,03,269/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment order before the Appellate Authority (2nd respondent) but with a delay of 172 days. Along with the appeal (Ext.P2), the petitioner also filed a stay petition (Ext.P3) and a petition for condonation of delay (Ext.P4). The present writ petition has been filed seeking early disposal of these pending applications before the Appellate Authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the application for condonation of delay expeditiously, given the delay in filing the appeal? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) The petitioner contended that the writ petition was filed for the early disposal of their appeal, stay petition, and condonation of delay application. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The core issue revolves around the court's intervention to expedite the decision on the delay condonation, which is a prerequisite for the appeal and stay to be considered on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 21ST ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 32812 OF 2023 PETITIONER: MKD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. P- 630, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UMA., PIN - 678582 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC No.32812 of 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 13th day of October, 2023 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal, Ext.P3 stay petition and Ext.P4 petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner’s return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 was scrutinized and a demand of Rs.12,03,269/- has been issued for payment of the income tax dues. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal against the said assessment order before the Appellate Authority with delay of 172 days. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not approached the Appellate Authority on time but with delay of 172 days, no relief can be granted by this Court, except a direction to the 2nd

WPC No.32812 of 2023 3 respondent to consider and decide Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. If the delay is condoned, the Appellate Authority may take up Ex.P3 application for stay and decide the same, expeditiously. 4. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP

WPC No.32812 of 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32812/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DTD. 16-09- 2022 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 05-04-2023 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD, 05-04-2023 Exhibit P4 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD, 05-04-2023 Exhibit P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 29879/23 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 20-09-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →