Quashed

Pazhayakunnummel Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1517 v. the Income Tax Officer

Kerala HC12 Feb 2016WP(C)/2601/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an Income Tax appellate authority's conditional stay order. The Court, noting pending Division Bench orders granting unconditional stay in similar matters, quashed the conditional order directing the authority to pass fresh orders within four months.

What did the court decide?

Quash Ext.P8 order; direct 2nd respondent to pass orders in appeal within four months; keep recovery steps in abeyance.

Pazhayakunnummel Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1517… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2601 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1517, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KILLIMANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 601.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶9

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 003.

¶12

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003.

¶13

BY ADV.SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 2601 of 2016 (A)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29.04.1999, ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT:P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BYELAWS OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.
EXT:P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 27.03.2014.
EXT:P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 09.04.2014.
EXT:P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 16.09.2015, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P4 APPEAL.
EXT:P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.09.2014 IN I.A.NO.2364/2014 IN ITA NO.188/2014.
EXT:P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2015 IN WP(C)NO.28927 OF 2015.
EXT:P8:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ITA NO.14/TVM/CIT(A) TVM/ 2014-15 DATED 08.01.2016.
EXT:P9:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2015 IN WP(C)NO.39464 OF 2015.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.2601 Of 2016

¶26

............................................................. Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 conditional order of stay passed by the 2^nd respondent in a stay application filed along with an appeal against an order of assessment under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-2009. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that although he could not appear before the 2^nd respondent on the date when the stay application was posted, the 2^nd respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P8 order insisting on a payment of 50% of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order as a condition for the grant of stay of recovery of balance during the pendency of the appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that on a similar issue various income tax appeals are pending before a Division Bench of this Court, where this Court granted an unconditional stay. It is contended, therefore, that the 2^nd respondent appellate authority while considering the stay petition ought to have taken note of the orders passed by this Court in

¶29

-2-

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 2601 of 2016

¶31

connected matters and granted an unconditional stay rather than a conditional stay requiring him to pay 50% of the demand confirmed against him during the pendency of the appeal.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶33

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that, although, the petitioner was not represented before the 2^nd respondent at the time of hearing of the stay petition, the ground of challenge in the writ petition against Ext.P8 order is not that the order is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that on merits, the issue is one where the 2^nd respondent ought to have taken note of the orders passed by this Court staying recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal, and granted an unconditional stay. I find force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and insofar as the 2^nd respondent has passed only a conditional order of stay, I quash Ext.P8 order and direct the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders in the appeal itself within a

¶34

-3-

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 2601 of 2016

¶36

period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner. The recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent as directed and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for further action.

¶37

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶38

mns/12.02.16

Pazhayakunnummel Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1517 v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pazhayakunnummel Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1517 v. the Income Tax Officer

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

Babu P.G. Vs v.R.Raju

M.C.Sudhakaran Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Ismail Moochikkal Vs the Commericial Tax Officer

Sajumon John Vs the Branch Manager

Mohanan.T Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

Santin Antony Vs State of Kerala