KADAKKARAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/27953/2013HC KeralaKLHC01071138201313 November 20134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the stay petition (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months, after issuing notice to the petitioner. The Court further ordered that coercive steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P4) shall be put on hold until orders are passed on the stay petition. The petitioner was also directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kadakkarappally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer. The appeal was filed on April 15, 2013, along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) seeking a stay on the recovery of disputed tax. While the appeal and stay petition were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the petitioner received a demand notice (Ext.P4) dated November 4, 2013. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the demand notice issued during the pendency of its appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of a demand notice (Ext.P4) during the pendency of an appeal and a stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is legally tenable, particularly when the petitioner is seeking a stay on recovery of disputed tax under the Income Tax Act. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that receiving a demand notice while its appeal and stay petition were under consideration by the appellate authority was improper and caused prejudice. They sought intervention from the High Court to halt coercive recovery steps. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the issuance of the demand notice implies the revenue's position that recovery proceedings could continue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/22ND KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 27953 of 2013 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- KADAKKARAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1125, KADAKKARAPPALLY PO, CHERTHALA , ALAPPUZHA 688529. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.P VENUGOPAL

BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA 688011 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KERA BHAVAN , KOCHI -682011

BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH - SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11- 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 27953 of 2013 (T) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7-3-2013 EXT.P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15-4-2013 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15-4-2013 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4-11-2013 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.27953 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 13th day of November, 2013

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act. The appeal is accompanied by Ext.P3 petition for stay of recovery of the disputed tax. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 demand notice served on it during the pendency of the appeal and the petition for stay. 2. I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 petition with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months. The coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P4 notice shall be put on hold till orders are passed on Ext.P3 petition as directed above. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →