M/s The Pedapadu Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited V. The Income Tax Officer,

WP/2405/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s The Pedapadu Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited, the petitioner, contesting an order from the Income Tax Officer, the 1st respondent, which directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the total tax demand immediately while an appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 was pending. The petitioner argued that the order was made without a hearing, referencing similar cases where the courts had set aside such orders and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing. The respondents did not contest the possibility of a time-bound disposal of the appeal. The court, following precedents and ensuring fair hearing, remanded the case for a fresh decision on the stay application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747581 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Sudarshan Reddy Kottur v. Income Tax Officer and another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUP KARAVADI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Assessment; Cooperative Society; Income Tax; Stay Application; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"APHC010040942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: 2405/2025 Between: M/s The Pedapadu Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited The Income Tax Officer and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 2405/2025 M/s The Pedapadu Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited AND The Income Tax Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA Respondent(S): ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3516] THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 HBKM,J & HVN,J W.P.No.2405 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Statutory Appeal is pending before the 4th respondent/Appellate Authority against the assessment made for the year 2018-19. Pending the above said Appeal, the stay application was filed before the 1st respondent and without hearing the submissions of the writ petitioner, the said application was disposed of by the said authority vide order dated 28.01.2025 directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the total demand immediately, pending consideration of the above said Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. dated 20.07.2018 reported in 2018 12 ITR-OL 334 (SC), wherein, it was observed by recording the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant therein that the administrative circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi-judicial authority and it is only needed to clarify that in all cases like the present, it is open to the authorities on the facts of individual cases, to grant deposit orders of 3 HBKM,J & HVN,J W.P.No.2405 of 2025 20% lesser amount, pending the Appeal. Recording the said submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General, the said Appeal was disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Following the same, the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of Mr. Sudarshan Reddy Kottur v. Income Tax Officer and another, dated 30.01.2023 reported in 2023 458 ITR 750 (Telangana), remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent therein for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order therein dated 16.01.2023 by fixing the time limit of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Further, the respondents therein were directed not to take coercive steps for realizing the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2017-18 during the aforesaid period of six (6) weeks. Accordingly, the said writ petition was allowed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents in this case submits that this Appeal can also be disposed of in a time bound manner. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon following the above said decisions on the stay applications before the authorities concerned, this Court deems it fit and proper to remand the matter directing the 1st respondent to consider afresh the 4 HBKM,J & HVN,J W.P.No.2405 of 2025 stay application of the writ petitioner by giving due opportunity of hearing for both the parties to decide the same on merits, pending the Appeal of the writ petitioner before the appellate authority concerned, for which, the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed on the stay application is set-aside enabling the said respondent to consider the application afresh on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Pending consideration of the stay application before the said authority, there shall not be any coercive action including the enforcement of garnishee order. In view of the orders passed by this Court, as directed above, it is open for the petitioner to make an application before the said authority along with the stay application to consider the incidental reliefs. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 04.02.2025 MDP "