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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3006 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER/S: THE MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO.F 1650, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD-678592, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JIJUMON.A.J., AGED 45, S/O.JAYAPRAKASH.A.L. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APAPEALS),SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680021. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 3006 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2020 JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: (i)“To direct the 2[nd] respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3stay petition expeditiously by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writor order or direction.(ii)To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs ofthese proceedings.” 2.Heard Sri.Harisankar V Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department appearing for the respondents. 3. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has taken the view thatthe insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded, as acondition for grant of stay, need not be insisted in cases as in the instantone and that the Division Bench, for reasons stated therein, has orderedthat it is for the appellate authority to take a decision on the statutoryappeal at the earliest and that until the final decision is rendered by theappellate authority in the statutory appeal, coercive steps for recovery andcollection of the impugned tax shall be kept in abeyance in the light of thedictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi ServiceCo-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has also dealt with thereasons for taking such a view for making such an interim arrangementpending disposal of the main appeal by the statutory appellate authorityconcerned. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1529/2019 has been followed by this Court in a series of other cases as inthe judgment dated 10.1.2020 in W.P.(C).No.523/2020. Accordingly,following the line of directions and orders already passed by the DivisionBench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019as well as various other judgments rendered by this Court, following thesaid directions and orders of the Division Bench in the matter of theinterim arrangement till the disposal of the main statutory appeal, etc.,following orders and directions are issued: It is ordered that the 2[nd] respondent appellate authority shallensure final disposal of Ext.P2 appeal after affording reasonableopportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay andwithin a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by thesaid appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice it is orderedthat until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P2 appeal, all coercivesteps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in theabovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS,JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: It is ordered that the 2[nd] respondent appellate authority shallensure final disposal of Ext.P2 appeal after affording reasonableopportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay andwithin a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by thesaid appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice it is orderedthat until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P2 appeal, all coercivesteps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in theabovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS,JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 24.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 7.1.2020. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2020.