KOODARANHI SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOZHIKODE

WP(C)/9707/2015HC KeralaKLHC01055547201526 May 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)) to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of two months after issuing notice to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings based on the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay application. The petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders or the stay application itself, but rather on the procedural step of ensuring the stay petition is considered promptly and that recovery is paused in the interim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Koodaranhi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) pursuant to assessment orders for Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2012-13. The petitioner had filed appeals against these assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (2nd respondent) and had also filed applications for stay against the recovery proceedings. The writ petition was filed because the petitioner approached the High Court due to the ongoing recovery proceedings despite the pending appeals and stay applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the stay petition filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should be halted until the stay application, filed along with their appeals against the assessment orders, is considered by the appellate authority. The petitioner approached the High Court due to the recovery actions being pursued while their appeals and stay applications were pending. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue. The focus was on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application and the need for a direction to the appellate authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No. 9707 of 2015

W.P.(C).No. 9709 of 2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2015/5TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9707 of 2015 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- KOODARANHI SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO.L.L.74, KOODARANHI P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 604, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL). RESPONDENT(S): -------------

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WARD NO.2(3), AAYANKAR BHAVAN, MANACHIRA,

KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL),

KOZHIKODE - 673 001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rvs.

WP(C).No. 9707 of 2015 (K)

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : EXT. P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2014. EXT. P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 3.4.14 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.8.2014 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/12/2014 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTERISED RECEIPT ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA DATED NIL. EXT. P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.10.2014 FOR AY 2009-10 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P8- A TRUE OCPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.10.2014 FOR AY 2012-13 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P9- A TRUE COY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 9.12.2014 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2009-10 SUBMITTED IN APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P10- A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 9.12.2014 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 SUBMITTED IN APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P11- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.3.2015 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2009-10. EXT. P12- A TRUE COY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.3.2015 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13. EXT. P13- A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P2 APPEAL. EXT. P14- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM (IN CONNECTION WITH AY 2009-10) DATED 02/12/2014 ALONG WITH STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P15- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM (IN CONNECTION WITH AY 2012-13) DATED 03/12/2014 ALONG WITH STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE RVS.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 9709 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May,2015 J U D G M E N T ------------------------- The petitioner, as against Ext.P1 Assessment order for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2012-13 filed appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also filed an application for stay against the recovery proceedings of Assessment order. The petitioner approached this Court on account of the recovery proceedings pursuant to Assessment Order. 2. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the stay petition within a period of two months after issuing notice to the petitioner. Till the disposal of stay application, all recovery proceedings based on Assessment Order shall be kept abeyance. The petitioner shall produce the copy of the

W.P.(C).No.9707 of 2015 2 judgment along with the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →