THE POTHANGANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOEM TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7335/2015HC KeralaKLHC01053175201509 March 2015Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The order passed by the Commissioner must contain reasons for the decision. Furthermore, recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order were to be kept in abeyance until the Commissioner passed orders on the stay petition and communicated the same to the petitioner. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Poothanganam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2007-2008. The petitioner had filed an appeal and a stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being pursued for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order, even before the stay petition was considered. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The procedural history involves the filing of an assessment order, an appeal, and a stay petition, followed by the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being initiated prematurely, before the adjudication of their stay application. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this procedural matter 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7335 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- THE POOTHANGANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P.O.PULLUR, ANANDASRAM VIA, KASARAGOD -671 531, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.2, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 121. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts

WP(C).No. 7335 of 2015 (N) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: COPY OF THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2007-08. EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ................................................. ............................................... Dated this the 9th day of March, 2015 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007- 2008, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even before a consideration of the stay petition by the 2nd respondent, recovery steps are sought to be pursued for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order. 2. I have heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai, learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 stay petition, preferred by the petitioner before him, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent shall contain reasons for the decision arrived at by him.

Recovery steps, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 2nd respondent passes orders, as directed, in Ext.P3 stay petition, and communicates the same to the petitioner. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE AMV/09/03/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →