Wp(C)/299/2009 Of The Konni Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 299 of 2009(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KONNI REGIONAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.NO.3833, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM. BY SC ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -WP.(C) No. 299 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. Petitioner challengesExt.P6. In the meantime, petitioner preferred a revision and it culminated inExt.P4 order. The Commissioner directed grant of relief on two counts.The consequential order is Ext.P5 series in respect of three years. Refundswere found due. By Ext.P6 impugned order what the Tax Recovery Officerhas done is after making the adjustments against various demands, anamount of Rs.10,12,737/- is shown as payable by the petitioner against theoutstanding liabilities under Sections 271(1)(c), 271 B and 220 for variousyears. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose and also Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel appearing onbehalf of the Income Tax Department. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders of demand are not even produced before this court. He also submits that as ofnow no garnishee order has been issued. WPC.299/2009. 4. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner is entitled to waiver of penalty under Section 273A and further submits that petitioner has alsomoved the authority under Section 273A. 5. Challenge to Ext.P6 may not lie as it is essentially based on the orders of penalty, which are in turn not even produced or challengedbefore me. The challenge therefore is to a consequential demand, which isimpermissible in law. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interferewith the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. However, thiswill be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek relief in anyother forum. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb