M/S KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/8161/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd (petitioner) challenging demand notices (Exts.P1 and P2) issued by the Income Tax Department for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. The petitioner had previously challenged the assessment orders in court, which led to the filing of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought interim relief from the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the circumstances were unique and required immediate judicial intervention. However, the Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the appropriate relief should be sought in the ongoing proceedings in the Supreme Court. The High Court agreed with the respondents, emphasizing that the reliefs against the demand notices are inherently linked to the outcomes of the assessment orders being challenged in the Supreme Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697559 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSE JACOB
• Keywords: Assessment orders; Demand notices; Interim relief; Supreme Court; Special Leave Petitions
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 8161 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: M/S KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD KASCARD BUILDING, PB NO 56, STATUE JUNCTION,TRIVANDRUM- 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MS.APARNA PRATHAP. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JACOB RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O.TRIVANDRUM- 695 003. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM- 695 003. BY ADV. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8161 of 2019 2 JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Jose Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices issued by 2nd respondent. The subject Matter of Exts.P1 and P2 is the demand for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. It is not in dispute that the challenge laid by the petitioner against the respective assessment orders is confirmed by this Court. The disposal of tax appeals lead to filing Special Leave Petitions and are pending in the Supreme court. 3. Sri.Jose Jacob, contends that the circumstances in the case on hand are singular and that the petitioner therefore is compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for interim relief. He elaborates his submission by arguing that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 can certainly grant interim relief to the petitioner however the relief granted by this Court to the petitioner vis-a-vis Exts.P1 and P2 is subject to final adjudication of SLPs. Therefore he prays for stay of WP(C).No. 8161 of 2019 3 Exts.P1 and P2 for at least till Monday i.e, 08.06.2019. 4. Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel opposes the writ prayer and contends that the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is completely misconceived the petitioner is working out the remedies of appeal under Income Tax Act, all the prayers ancillary and incidental to the substantive challenge should be obtained from the very proceeding in which the substantive issue is in challenge. He further contends that this Court even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to consider extending any relief against Exts.P1 and P2 because they are always dependent on the orders that may be passed in the substantive prayers made against the order of assessment. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. The rival submissions made at the Bar, are carefully considered by this Court. The circumstances are not in dispute and also that the SLP filed by the petitioner against the subject assessment year is pending before the Supreme Court. This Court is of the considered view that the challenge to Exts.P1 and P2 is always dependent on the challenge to substantive order of assessment and the reliefs that could be granted by either this Court when the tax appeal is entertained or WP(C).No. 8161 of 2019 4 by the Apex Court in the SLP filed against ITA. The prayer of the petitioner if is considered by this Court, I am afraid the same amounts to this Court entertaining Exts.P1 and P2 which are in the nature of recovery proceeding when the challenge for assessment order as on today is unsuccessful. The petitioner is better advised to move and also seek necessary orders of stay from the Supreme Court where the issue is pending. For the above reasons this court is not persuaded to the limited prayer of the petitioner but for the compelling reason referred to above. The writ petition fails and dismissed. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Ac WP(C).No. 8161 of 2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND RELATING TO AY 2012-13 DATED 15.03.2019 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND RELATING TO AY 2014-15 DATED 15.3.2019 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ITAT ORDER OBTAINED ONLINE RELATING TO AY 2012-13 AND AY 2014-15 DATED 7.2.2019 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR AY 2007-08 DATED 1.2.2016 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR AY 2008-09 AND AY 2009- 10 DATED 29.2.2016 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 3.10.2014 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// Sd/- PA TO JUDGE "