PWD IRRIGATION & LSGD EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , TRIVANDRUM

WP(C)/25006/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the PWD Irrigation & LSGD Employee Co-operative Society Ltd, which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax authorities in Kerala. The petitioner challenged an assessment order and filed a stay petition along with the appeal. The core issue was the premature coercive actions taken by the tax authorities before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition. The court's decision focused on upholding procedural fairness by allowing the appellate authority time to decide on the stay petition before any coercive measures were implemented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755169 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Coercive Steps; Income Tax; Procedural fairness; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 25006 of 2018 ----------------------- PETITIONER ---------- PWD IRRIGATION & LSGD EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO.T 638, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,PALAYAM, NEAR MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 695 033. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 2. THE INCOME TAX, WARD -2(1) KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. BY ADVS SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SRI K.M.V.PANDALAI,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V. WP(C).No. 25006 of 2018 (A) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 17/07/2018. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-FILED APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 04/01/2017 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10/01/2017 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DEMANDING 20% OF THE DEMAND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/10/2017. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 08/11/2017 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR F.NO.404/72/93/ITCC DATED 29/02/2016 AS MODIFIED BY O.M.DATED 31/07/2017. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE EXT.P7 REVIEW PETITION DATED 10/07/2018. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DEMANDING ENTIRE TAX BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12/07/2018. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------- /TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 31.07.2018 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No. 25006 of 2018 (A) ======================================================= Dated this the 26th day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner questioned Ext.P2 assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, before the 1st respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition along with the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the -2- W.P.(C). No. 25006 of 2018 (A) stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 1st respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 1st respondent will dispose of the stay petition, within a period of three months (agreed time). Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das 26.07.2018 "