By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2019 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1941 WA.No. 1250 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10405/2019 of HIGH COURT APPELLANT/PETITIONER: KANIPPAYYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO. 280, P.O. KANIPPAYYUR, THRISSUR 680 517, REPRESENTED BY TIS SECRETARY NASEER M.M. AGED 62, S/O. MOIDUNNY.M.A. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, GURUVAYUR 680 517.WARD-1, GURUVAYUR 680 517. 3THE TAX RECVOERY OFFICER,DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR 680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC,IT DEPT.- SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:- C.K.ABDUL REHIM & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI,JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =W.A. No.1250 of 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - – - - - - Dated this the 22[nd] day of May,2019 J U D G M E N T Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10405 of 2019 is inappeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 3[rd] April, 2019,to the extent it directed deposit of 20% of the amountof tax determined for the assessment year 2013-14,pending disposal of Ext.P3 statutory appeal filedagainst the assessment. The respondents herein are therespondents in the writ petition. 2.In the statutory appeal instituted by theappellant against the assessment, Ext.P4 interim staywas granted subject to condition of deposit of 30% ofthe demand. The appellant failed to comply with thecondition. As a consequence, Ext.P8 Notice underSection 221(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was issued.The writ petition was filed challenging the said noticeand also seeking direction for disposal of Ext.P3appeal by the appellate authority. The learned Judgewas pleased to interfere with the condition stipulatedby the appellate authority and reduced the amount insisted for deposit, to 20%. Therefore relief wasgranted staying the recovery, subject to condition ofthe appellant depositing 10% of the tax demanded withinsix weeks from the date of the judgment and another 10%within six weeks thereafter. It was made clear that, indefault of payment, the stay granted will be deemed tohave been vacated. There was also a direction issued tothe appellate authority to consider and dispose of theappeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate withina period of six months. It is aggrieved by the saidjudgment, the above writ appeal is filed. 3.Upon hearing arguments of the counsel for theappellant and Sri. Christopher Abraham, learned counselfor the respondents, we are not persuaded to interferewith the judgment impugned. Having confronted with thesituation, learned counsel for the appellant soughtindulgence of this Court to extend the periodstipulated for deposit of the first instalment by afurther period of one month from today. 4.We take note of the fact that the appellant isa Co-operative Bank and the liability for payment ofthe amount, prima facie, cannot be disputed. However,we are inclined to show indulgence in extending thetime limit stipulated, in order to facilitate depositof the amount to satisfy the condition. -:4:- 5.Hence, the impugned judgment in W.P.(C)No.10405 of 2019 is modified to the extent of allowingdeposit of 20% of the disputed amount under demandwithin a period of six weeks from today. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIMJUDGE DST Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE //True copy//P.A. To Judge