THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/8682/2020HC KeralaKLHC01022310202025 June 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent (ITAT) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that the decision should be taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the ITAT was instructed not to insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order were to be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeal. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its expeditious disposal and interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Karakurissi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the third respondent, to dispose of its appeal (Ext.P3) and stay application (Ext.P4). The appeal was filed against an appellate order (Ext.P2) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of these applications pending before the ITAT. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal and stay application before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the ITAT to dispose of the pending appeal and stay application filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/administrative direction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of its appeal and stay application before the ITAT. The petitioner also sought a direction to stay recovery proceedings until the appeal is decided. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly record any contentions in this judgment. The judgment indicates that the matter was heard by the learned counsel on both sides, implying the revenue was represented.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL THUR AY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.8682 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER/S: THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P.1025,KARAKURISSI,PALAKKAD-678595, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,A.JAYASREE,AGED 48, D/O.A.ANIYAN MENON. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2,AYAKAR BHAVAN,PALAKKAD-678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680021. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN,KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.8682 OF 2020(I) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 25th day of June 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal and stay application Ext.P4 preferred before the third respondent against the appellate order Ext.P2. 2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 appeal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment without insisting on payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per circular of 2017. Till such time a decision is taken on the appeal, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.8682 OF 2020(I) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2013-14 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →