KADALUNDI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/21846/2013HC KeralaKLHC01065037201303 September 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal at this stage, as it would prejudice the parties. It directed the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the appeal (Exhibit P4) within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, without being influenced by the impugned conditional order of stay (Exhibit P6). Furthermore, coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Exhibit P3) were ordered to be put on hold, provided the petitioner remits one-third of the amount due under the assessment order within one month from the date of the judgment. The petitioner was also directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the first respondent for compliance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kadalundi Service Co-operative Bank Limited, has filed a writ petition challenging a conditional order of stay (Exhibit P6) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 (first respondent). This order was in response to a stay petition (Exhibit P5) accompanying an appeal (Exhibit P4) filed against an assessment order (Exhibit P3) for Assessment Year 2010-11, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Kozhikode (second respondent). The petitioner's request for a stay of tax recovery was rejected by the impugned order. The High Court noted that a detailed consideration of the merits at this stage would prejudice the pending appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the conditional order of stay passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when the appeal is still pending. The petitioner's contention, implied by filing the writ petition, is that the conditional order of stay is not satisfactory and seeks a different outcome. The revenue's contention, implied by the order of the Commissioner, is that a stay should be conditional, likely requiring a partial payment of the disputed tax amount. The judgment does not explicitly detail arguments from either side regarding the specific conditions imposed or the merits of the appeal itself, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of the pending appeal and the stay application.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/12TH BHADRA, 1935 WP(C).No. 21846 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KADALUNDI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F.1500, KADALUNDI POST, KADALUNDI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss

WP(C).No. 21846 of 2013 (E) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 3.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2013 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss

V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 21846 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2013

J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 conditional order of stay passed on Ext.P5 petition for stay accompanying Ext.P4 appeal filed against Ext.P3 order of assessment is impugned. The stay of recovery of tax as sought by the petitioner stands rejected by Ext.P6 order and a detailed consideration of the merits of this case at this juncture would prejudice the contentions of either parties in Ext.P4 appeal pending. 2. I however direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 appeal untrammelled by Ext.P6 order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 order of assessment shall be put on hold on condition that the petitioner remits one third of the amount due under Ext.P3 order within a period of one month from today. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH smm JUDGE

smm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →