Dismissed

The Konni Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Kerala HC9 Jan 2009WP(C)/299/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a consequential tax demand where the underlying penalty orders were not produced. The court held that the challenge was impermissible as the impugned order was based on unproduced penalty orders.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice.

The Konni Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Chief Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 299 of 2009(I)

PETITIONER(S):

KONNI REGIONAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.NO.3833, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING

¶14

I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA.

¶16

TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

BY SC ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

¶20

- - - - WP.(C) No. 299 of 2009

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶24

Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. Petitioner challenges

¶25

Ext.P6. In the meantime, petitioner preferred a revision and it culminated in Ext.P4 order. The Commissioner directed grant of relief on two counts. The consequential order is Ext.P5 series in respect of three years. Refunds were found due. By Ext.P6 impugned order what the Tax Recovery Officer has done is after making the adjustments against various demands, an amount of Rs.10,12,737/- is shown as payable by the petitioner against the outstanding liabilities under Sections 271(1)(c), 271 B and 220 for various years.

¶26

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose and also Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department.

¶27

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders of demand are not even produced before this court. He also submits that as of now no garnishee order has been issued.

¶28

WPC.299/2009. 2

¶29

Case of the petitioner is that petitioner is entitled to waiver

¶30

of penalty under Section 273A and further submits that petitioner has also moved the authority under Section 273A.

¶31

Challenge to Ext.P6 may not lie as it is essentially based on

¶32

the orders of penalty, which are in turn not even produced or challenged before me. The challenge therefore is to a consequential demand, which is impermissible in law. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek relief in any other forum.

¶33

(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶34

The Konni Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Konni Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Achuthan Vs T.K.Raveendran

George.C.Mutholy Vs the Intelligence Officer & Others

Gopalan Nair Vs the Kseb & Others

M/S.Varun Agro Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Meena Vasanth Vs Asst.Commissioner (Assessment)

Neto Niclavos Vs the Commercial Tax Officer