THE MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/3006/2020

AI Insights

The case involves the Mundur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking expedited processing of their appeal and stay petition concerning an assessment order for the year 2017-18. The petitioner argued for a writ of mandamus to direct the appellate authority to decide on their pending appeal and stay petition promptly. The court referenced a Division Bench decision and several other judgments that supported the petitioner's request for a stay on coercive recovery actions until the appellate authority made a decision on the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695487 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2020
• 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: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Coercive Steps; Income Tax; Mandamus; Stay Petition; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3006 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER/S: THE MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.F 1650, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD-678592, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JIJUMON.A.J., AGED 45, S/O.JAYAPRAKASH.A.L. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APAPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680021. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3006 OF 2020(A) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 3006 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2020 JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: (i) “To direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition expeditiously by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. (ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.” 2. Heard Sri.Harisankar V Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, 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 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 WP(C).No.3006 OF 2020(A) 3 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 2nd respondent appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P2 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 authority. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P2 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 SKS WP(C).No.3006 OF 2020(A) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 24.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 7.1.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2020. "