By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WA.No.547 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5473/2020(H) OF HIGH COURT OFKERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 585,RAZMALL COMPLEX, PALLIPURAM ROAD,PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD 679303REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.GIRIJA,AGED 58, D/O.E.P.NARAYANAN NAIR BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3, AYAKAR BHAVAN,PALAKKAD 678 014. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR 680 001 3.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,AYAKAR BHAVAN,KAKKANADU, KOCHI 682030REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. SC. IT DEPT. SRI JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2020,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. &T.R. RAVI, J. ----------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No. 547 of 2020 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2020 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. Limited grievance upon which the above writ appeal is filed isthat the learned Single Judge, while directing the 3[rd] respondent toconsider and to pass appropriate orders on the application for stayfiled along with a statutory appeal, had omitted to direct to keep inabeyance the coercive steps of recovery initiated, till then. Hence,the judgment impugned is sought to be modified to that extent. 2.Ext.P1 order of assessment finalized against theappellant was challenged before the first appellate authority.Through Ext.P2 order, the challenges were repelled. The appellantfiled second appeal before the 3[rd] respondent Tribunal, as evidencedfrom Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is a stay petition filed before the Tribunalseeking stay of recovery, pending disposal of the second appeal.Since Ext.P4 was not considered, the appellant approached thiscourt in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge directed the 3[rd]respondent to consider and to pass appropriate orders on the stay application, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of acopy of the judgment. But no stay against the coercive steps ofrecovery was granted till then, presumably on the finding that nosteps for attachment etc. have been initiated. 3.The appellant had pointed out that, unless the coercivesteps of recovery are not stayed till the disposal of Ext.P4 staypetition, it will cause severe prejudices. 4.Heard the counsel on either side. 5.Having considered the situation as mentioned above, weare of the opinion that coercive steps of recovery can be directed tobe kept in abeyance, till the 3[rd] respondent passes orders on Ext.P4stay petition. Hence, we modify the impugned judgmentaccordingly. The writ appeal is hereby disposed of as above. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Sd/- T.R.RAVI, JUDGE