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

WP(C)/5667/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015101202003 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (third respondent) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Tribunal is directed not to insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The principle established is that courts can direct the expeditious disposal of pending appeals by statutory tribunals, with specific directions regarding pre-conditions for hearing, especially when supported by circulars.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kumaranputhur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (third respondent) against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of this pending appeal. The appeal was filed against the Income Tax Officer (first respondent) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent). The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, which remained undecided, leading to the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/direction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction from the High Court for the expeditious disposal of their appeal pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. They rely on the general principle of timely disposal of appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard. The revenue did not explicitly record any contentions against the direction for disposal, but the direction issued by the court implicitly addresses the revenue's interest in the finalization of the assessment. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by either side in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5667 OF 2020(G) PETITIONER/S: THE KUMARAMPUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,. NO.P 373, MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE, N.KRISHNADAS, AGED 57, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR - 680 001. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. SC. FOR INCOME TAX JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5667 OF 2020(G) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the third respondent/Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, against the assessment order Ext.P1. 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 sab JUDGE

WP(C).No.5667 OF 2020(G) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2016-17. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →