Kerala High Court
Lakshadweep Development Corporation ... vs Income Tax Officer on 10 April, 2017
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/20TH CHAITHRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 10707 of 2017 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
56/2366, LDCL, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI,
REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, (MATERIALS AND ACCOUNTS).
BY ADVS.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. INCOME TAX OFFICER
CORPORATE WARD -1(4), CORPORATE RANGE -1,
5TH FLOOR, CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018.
2. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
KOCHI BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD 682 030.,
REP. BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
3. CANARA BANK
PANAMPILLY NAGAR BRANCH,
ERNAKULAM 682 036,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
R BY SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 10707 of 2017 (K)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(APPEALS) -I, KOCHI
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE END RESPONDENT - TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE TEH 2ND RESPONDENT- TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO. 2998/2017
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STAY PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2012-2013
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT -
BANK TO THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
W.P(C) No. 10707 of 2017 K
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - --
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery now sought for as per Ext.P6 intimation. The 1st respondent has also initiated garnishee proceedings against the 3rd respondent.
2. The petitioner's claim for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, under Section 10(26B) of the Income Tax Act was rejected. The petitioner filed appeals before the Tribunal in which the Tribunal had specifically stayed the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,11,28,830/- of the total amounts due for the assessment year 2011-12 and Rs.65,70,703/- for the assessment year 2012-13. However, the dues for the assessment year 2012-13 was far in excess WP(C) No.10707/2017 : 2 : of that as placed before the Tribunal. The total dues for the assessment year 2012-13 came to Rs.17,40,79,440/-. It is the amount exceeding that for which stay was granted; which is attempted to be now recovered.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for Government of India (Taxes) submits that the assessment completed was rectified insofar as the computation and a fresh order was issued on February, 2016 showing the total demand of more than Rs,17 crores. The same was issued to the petitioner even before the first appeal was concluded. The first appeal concluded in November, 2016 and the petitioner took up a second appeal before the Tribunal. However, before the Tribunal, the petitioner failed to produce the rectified demand and it was in such circumstances, that the petitioner was granted a stay specifically of the amounts indicated in the order of the WP(C) No.10707/2017 : 3 : Tribunal; a copy of which is handed over to me across the Bar. The learned Standing Counsel would also point out that, before the Tribunal, it was submitted by the petitioner that there was a payment of Rs.1,76,00,000/- as against the total demand of Rs.4,53,00,000/-. Only on the finding that the amounts remitted at the first appellate stage, would come to a sizable percentage of the total dues, the Tribunal was inclined to grant the stay.
4. As of now, the petitioner submits that the matter has been posted on 15.05.2017 for final hearing. However, the Tribunal is not regularly sitting. There is an additional stay petition filed before the Tribunal at Ext.P7. In such circumstances, the recovery could wait till the additional stay petition is considered by the Tribunal. If there is a sitting scheduled by the Tribunal in May 2017, necessarily the aforesaid matter or at least the stay petition WP(C) No.10707/2017 : 4 : shall be placed for hearing. Till then, there shall be a stay of recovery and further recovery shall depend upon the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. The learned Counsel for the Garnishee/the 3rd respondent would submit that they have a fixed deposit in favour of the petitioner which expires only in March, 2018. Hence the attachment order shall continue and further disbursal shall only be after the attachment order is withdrawn by the 1st respondent, based on the orders passed by the Tribunal.
The petitioner shall produce the copy of the judgment before the Tribunal.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge