ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE & ANOTHER V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) & OTHERS

WP(C)/33547/2010

AI Insights

The case involves the Academy of Medical Science and the Kerala State Co-operative Hospital Complex & Centre for Advanced Medical Services Ltd, who are petitioners, against the Income Tax Officer (TDS) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with the Kannur District Co-operative Bank as respondents. The petitioners challenged the recovery actions initiated by the Income Tax Officer under sections 201 and 201(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the pendency of their appeals and stay petitions. The court found it necessary to halt further recovery actions until the appellate authority could review the stay petitions and the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 766950 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; P NARAYANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P V SURENDRANATH; BINDUMOL JOSEPH; B S SYAMANTHAK
• Keywords: Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Statutory Appeal; Stay Petition
• Section: 201; 201(A)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33547 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE S.NO.503/1993, PARIYARAM KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL COMPLEX & CENTRE FOR ADVANCED MEDICAL SERVICES LTD NO.4386 KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH, SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KANNOTHUMCHAL.KANNUR -670 006. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, CALICUT – 5. 3. KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KANNUR- 670 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, S.C, R3 BY SRI. P. NARAYANAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33547 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Exts.P6 to P8 orders issued by the 1st respondent under section 201 and 201(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the 1st petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced from Exts.P9, P11 and P13. Exts.P10, P12 and P14 are the stay petitions filed along with the appeals. The 1st petitioner had also moved an application before the 1st respondent seeking to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings, till the disposal of the appeals. 2. The petitioner submits that, without considering pendency of the appeals, the stay petitions, and the request in Ext.P5, the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P7 notice to the Bank, in which the 1st petitioner is operating account, requiring to make payment of a sum of RS.4,68,90,000/-. By Ext.P8 the Bank authorities were requested to forward a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, in compliance of W.P.(C) No. 33547/2010 2 which Ext.P19 Demand Draft was issued by the Bank debiting a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-from the account of the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are now proceeding with further coercive steps of recovery without considering pendency of the appeals as well as the stay petitions. 3. Heard; learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Considering pendency of the statutory appeal as well as stay petitions, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to direct the appellate authority to consider and pass appropriate orders, within a time frame. It is further necessary in the interest of justice to keep in abeyance the recovery steps, till such orders are issued by the appellate authority. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P10, P12 and P14 stay petitions, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as W.P.(C) No. 33547/2010 3 possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of any further amount determined under Exts.P6 to P8 order shall be kept in abeyance. 7. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn. "