Vaipur Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes(Cbdt) on 12 February, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Vaipur Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes(Cbdt) on 12 February, 2019

Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

      TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

                           WP(C).No. 4140 of 2019



PETITIONER/S:


                VAIPUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED A-203 III/395,
                VAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 588, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                SECRETARY, MUHAMMED ISMAIL.

                BY ADVS.
                DR.K.P.PRADEEP
                SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
                SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR
                SMT.T.THASMI
                SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
                SRI.T.T.BIJU




RESPONDENT/S:
      1       CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES(CBDT),
              DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
              GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001,
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

       2        THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
                INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4 , OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL
                COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA RANGE, T.K.
                ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 101.

       3        THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
                AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS,
                SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM -686 001.



OTHER PRESENT:
             SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC
 W.P.(C) No.4140/2019
                                    -2-



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act before the third respondent. The petitioner, in the appeal, filed a stay petition, too. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition in the appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

3. I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it 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 stay petition.

W.P.(C) No.4140/2019

-3-

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the third respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the third respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously.

Sd/-

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.

AAAAT6880E/2016-17 DATED 07-12-2018, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 10.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO AAAAT6880E/W-

4/TLA/2018-19 DATED 15.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 7.2.2019, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRAYING STAY OF RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNTS AS PER EXT-P1 ORDER.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court