Wp(C)/19756/2021 Of Madhava Vilasom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19756 OF 2021 PETITIONER: MADHAVA VILASOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1347REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARASUMOODU, KULATHOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICTBY ADVS.T.R.HARIKUMARARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: OTHER PRESENT: R4 – ADV.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC. ADV.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.19756 of 2021 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23[rd] day of September, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society,registered under the Kerala Co-operative SocietiesAct, 1969. Being aggrieved by Ext.P2 penalty orderissued under Section 271 B of the Income Tax Act,petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 2[nd]respondent along with Ext.P4 stay petition. It issubmitted that the appeal as well as the staypetitions are pending consideration before the 2[nd]respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that before the stay petition is taken up for consideration,coercive proceedings will be carried out therebyrendering the appeal itself as infructuous. Petitioner, therefore, seeks for a direction for earlyconsideration of his stay petition.consideration of his stay petition. 3. I have heard Adv.T.R.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.ChristopherAbraham, the learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for therespondents. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned counsel for the respondents and on accountof the circumstances arising in the case, I am of theview that the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondent, as the case maybe, can be directed to dispose of Ext.P4 stay petitionin a time bound manner.learned counsel for the respondents and on accountof the circumstances arising in the case, I am of theview that the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondent, as the case maybe, can be directed to dispose of Ext.P4 stay petitionin a time bound manner. 5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3, as the case may be, to take up Ext.P4 staypetition filed along with Ext.P3 appeal and considerthe same and pass appropriate orders within a periodof two months from the date of receipt of a certifiedpetition filed along with Ext.P3 appeal and considerthe same and pass appropriate orders within a periodof two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 6. Till such orders are passed, all coercive proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 order shall be kept inabeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19756/2021 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL