PANAYAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. C 46 V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/2052/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Panayal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the petitioner, challenging an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Kasaragod, the second respondent. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings demanding disputed tax and requested the appellate authority to consider their appeal on merit without initiating coercive proceedings until the appeal was decided. The court referenced a series of precedents where it was established that coercive recovery steps should be stayed pending the decision on statutory appeals, citing the Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and other similar judgments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754277 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], W.A.No. 1529/2019, W.P.(C).No.523/2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: O D SIVADAS
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Coercive Proceedings; Income Tax; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2052 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: PANAYAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. C 46 PANAYAL VILLAGE, PANAYAL.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671318, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (2), AAYAKAR BNHAVAN, KASARAGOD-671121 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.2052/2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P .(C)No.2052 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “1) Call for records leading to Ext.P3 proceeding issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal on merit and also restraining the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings against the petitioner society till orders are passed in Ext.P2 appeal on merit.” 2. Heard Sri. O.D. Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents. 3. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has taken the view that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded, as a condition for grant of stay, need not be insisted in cases as in the instant one and that the Division Bench, for reasons stated therein, has ordered that it is for the appellate authority to take a decision on the statutory appeal at the earliest and that until the final decision is rendered by the W.P.(C)No.2052/2020 3 appellate authority in the statutory appeal, coercive steps for recovery and collection of the impugned tax shall be kept in abeyance in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has also dealt with the reasons for taking such a view for making such an interim arrangement pending disposal of the main appeal by the statutory appellate authority concerned. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has been followed by this Court in a series of other cases as in the judgment dated 10.1.2020 in W.P.(C).No.523/2020. Accordingly, following the line of directions and orders already passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 as well as various other judgments rendered by this Court, following the said directions and orders of the Division Bench in the matter of the interim arrangement till the disposal of the main statutory appeal, etc., following orders and directions are issued: It is ordered that the 1st appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P-2 appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay and within a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by the said appellate W.P.(C)No.2052/2020 4 authority. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P-2 appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the abovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. sd/ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd W.P.(C)No.2052/2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2008-09 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 15.03.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2008-09 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 27.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEMANDING THE DISPUTED TAX "