THE RAMANATTUKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 7721 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)

WP(C)/21180/2014HC KeralaKLHC01066801201420 August 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the appellate authority (1st respondent) to dispose of the stay application (Ext.P5) within a period of one month from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Court ordered that coercive proceedings against the petitioner be stayed until such orders are passed by the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority, once passed, will then determine the matter thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather ensured a timely decision on the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Ramanattukara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged the assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2011-12, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2nd respondent). The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P6) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (1st respondent). While these were pending, coercive proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The writ petition was filed in this context, seeking relief from these coercive measures.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the appellate authority to dispose of the stay petition expeditiously, given the initiation of coercive proceedings by the revenue while the appeal and stay petition are pending. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive proceedings should not be initiated when an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the appellate authority. They sought a stay on these proceedings until the appellate authority decides the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the fact that coercive proceedings were initiated implies a stance that such actions are permissible pending appeal, or that the delay in disposal of the stay petition was not a matter of concern for the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/29TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 21180 of 2014 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- THE RAMANATTUKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 7721, FAROOK COLLEGE. P.O., KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR, SRI.REMYA MURALI, SRI.A.K.RAJESH, SRI.VENKATESH GOPI. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANACHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.

WP(C).No. 21180 of 2014 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. AY-2011-12 DATED 28-03-2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28-03-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-06-2014. P4. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. F.NO. KKD/C-2(1)/TAX ARREARS/AAAAR 1427R/14-15 DATED 26-05-2014. P5. TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24-07-2014. P6. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 28/04/2014. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C) No. 21180 of 2014 - V ====================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2014 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the assessment order passed against the petitioner for the year 2011-12. Against which, petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal, which is accompanied by Ext.P5 stay petition before the 1st respondent. Appeal and stay petition are pending before the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, coercive proceedings have been initiated. It is in this context, the writ petition has been filed. 2. In the above circumstances, it is directed that the appellate authority, the 1st respondent herein, shall dispose of Ext.P5 stay application within a period of one month from today and the coercive proceedings be stayed until such orders are passed, which order shall determine the matter thereafter. Writ petition disposed of. Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →