M/S. THE MANGALORE CO-OP BUILDING SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/5989/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01013642201307 February 2013Bench: H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no justifiable grounds to interfere with the discretionary interim order. However, it granted the petitioner two more weeks to deposit the 30% tax dues and directed the respondents not to initiate coercive steps during that period.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought to quash an interim order demanding 30% of disputed tax and to prevent recovery proceedings. The court was asked to direct the disposal of the appeal expeditiously.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should interfere with a discretionary interim order demanding a portion of disputed tax and whether recovery proceedings should be stayed pending appeal disposal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

WRIT PETITION NOS.5989-5990/2013 (T-IT)

BETWEEN

M/S. THE MANGALORE CO-OP. BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. PADMANABHA.K, S/O.MR.VENKAPPA SAPALYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, IST FLOOR, CLASSIC ARCADE, K.S.RAO ROAD, MANGALORE 575 003. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), C.R. BUILDINGS, ATTAVAR , MANGALORE 575 001.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

C.R.BUILDINGS, ATTAVAR, MANGALORE - 575 001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R1 DT.24.1.13 VIDE ANN-E, IN SO FAR AS IT DEMANDS 30% OF THE DISPUTED DEMAND ARRIVED AS EPR ORDER DT.13.12.12 PASSED U/S.154 OF THE AT VIDE ANN-B.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel is directed to take notice for respondents.

2.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.01.2013 (Annexure-E) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate recovery proceedings and to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

3.

The impugned order is a discretionary Interim order. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order.

4.

However, two more weeks time is granted for the petitioner to deposit 30% of tax dues as specified in the impugned order at (Annexure-E). The respondents shall not initiate coercive steps for another period of two weeks. Respondents to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. Three weeks time is granted to file memo of appearance. Sd/-

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →