Wp(C)/24788/2018 Of Keralal Livestock Development Board Ltd v. Teh Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 24788 of 2018 PETITIONER KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD, GOKULAM,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM-695004,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),KOWDIAR,TRIVANDRUM-695003. CIRCLE 1(1),KOWDIAR,TRIVANDRUM-695003. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOWDIAR,TRIVANDRUM-695003. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOWDIAR,TRIVANDRUM-695003. KOWDIAR,TRIVANDRUM-695003. BY SRI. K.M.V PANDALAI, SC BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24788 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2017 23.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 23.12.2017 23.12.2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.377440611290118 DATED 29.01.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.377440611290118 DATED 29.01.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 19.02.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.STAY/CIR-1(1)TVM/17-18 19.04.2018 19.04.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY DATED 02.05.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 02.05.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEARING REF.NO.T&A/FC.01.04.05/2018 DATED 12.06.2018 REF.NO.T&A/FC.01.04.05/2018 DATED 12.06.2018 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.NO.701/J/STAY/PR.CIT/2/2018-19 DATED 22.06.2018 NO.C.NO.701/J/STAY/PR.CIT/2/2018-19 DATED 22.06.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER ITA NOS.474,484 & 485/COCH/2016 DATED 01.02.2018 485/COCH/2016 DATED 01.02.2018 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY DATED 13.07.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 13.07.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2018 IN WP(C)NO.5083/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT WP(C)NO.5083/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER NO.ITA NO.25 & PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. 224/TVM/CIT(A),TVM/2015-16 & 2016-17 DATED 16.03.2018 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No.24788 of 2018 ======================================================= Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a public sector undertaking managed byGovernment of Kerala. It caters to the livestock sector. Itis, in other words, State Implementing Agency for theprojects formulated by the State and CentralGovernments. 2.Against Ext.P1 assessment order for 2015-2016, it has filed an appeal. The stay denied, it has taken the issue tothe higher echelons. All through, the authorities insistedthat the petitioner should deposit 20% of the disputed taxto have the appeal heard.the higher echelons. All through, the authorities insistedthat the petitioner should deposit 20% of the disputed taxto have the appeal heard. W.P.(C). No.24788 of 2018 ======================================================= Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a public sector undertaking managed byGovernment of Kerala. It caters to the livestock sector. Itis, in other words, State Implementing Agency for theprojects formulated by the State and CentralGovernments. 2.Against Ext.P1 assessment order for 2015-2016, it has filed an appeal. The stay denied, it has taken the issue tothe higher echelons. All through, the authorities insistedthat the petitioner should deposit 20% of the disputed taxto have the appeal heard.the higher echelons. All through, the authorities insistedthat the petitioner should deposit 20% of the disputed taxto have the appeal heard. 3.Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner draws myattention to Ext.P9 order of the Appellate Tribunal forthe previous assessment years. The issue is, in fact,attention to Ext.P9 order of the Appellate Tribunal forthe previous assessment years. The issue is, in fact, W.P.(C). No.24788 of 2018 -2- identical and the finding comprehensive: the petitioneris not exigible to tax.is not exigible to tax. 5.Under these circumstances, given the Ext.P9 findings and given the fact that it is a Government agency, Ireckon that the respondent's insistence on thepetitioner's complying with the pre-condition may notbe necessary. reckon that the respondent's insistence on thepetitioner's complying with the pre-condition may notbe necessary. 6.I, therefore, direct the Appellate Authority to considerthe petitioner's appeal on merits without insisting onthe pre-condition.the petitioner's appeal on merits without insisting onthe pre-condition. 7.At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd]respondent submitted that this Court may as well fix thetime limit for the appeal disposal. Subject to the docketpressure, the Appellate Authority may consider theappeal expeditiously, preferably, in three months.With these observations, I dispose of this Writ Petition.respondent submitted that this Court may as well fix thetime limit for the appeal disposal. Subject to the docketpressure, the Appellate Authority may consider theappeal expeditiously, preferably, in three months.With these observations, I dispose of this Writ Petition. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE JUDGE