AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S Dias, J
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext P8 assessment order passed by the second respondent as against the petitioner.
The petitioner’s case is that, it is a co-operative society classified as co-operative credit society under Rule 15 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. They are entitled for deduction of ITS business income from taxable income under the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Nevertheless, the second respondent has passed Ext P8 order, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,52,57,856/-. Aggrieved by Ext P8 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext P9 appeal before the third respondent. Along with Ext P9, the petitioner has filed Ext P10 delay petition and Ext P13 stay petition to stay the operation of Ext P8 order. But, the petitioner contends therein a case of identical circumstances this Court has entertained a writ petition and passed Ext P12 order. The petitioner is apprehensive that though it has filed Ext P9 appeal, the third respondent may not consider all the legal contentions addressed by the petitioner in Ext P9 appeal. Thus, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri. K.Rakesh Roshan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Smt. Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the fifth respondent.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy before the third respondent by preferring Ext P9 appeal, I am not inclined to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and advert to the contentions now raised in the present writ petition. Nevertheless, I make it clear that, if at all the appeal is to be considered after condoning the delay, the third respondent will have to necessarily advert to all the grounds that have been raised in Ext P9 appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
In the result, I dispose of the writ petition as follows:
(i) The third respondent shall first consider Ext P10 application filed to condone the delay in preferring Ext P9 appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
(ii) If Ext P10 application to condone the delay is considered, then the third respondent shall also consider Ext P13 stay petition after adverting to the law laid down by this Court in Archana Agencies vs. Commercial Tax Officer [2014(2)KLT 715] and decide the same, in accordance with law.
(iii) Until such time orders are passed on Exts P10 and P13 applications, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P8 order shall stand deferred.