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

WP(C)/4167/2020HC KeralaKLHC01011379202013 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent) to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with law. The decision must be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. This disposal is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court directed that the payment of 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon, referencing a circular of 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself but rather on the procedural aspect of its expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Malayankil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of its appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The revenue was represented by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (second respondent). The assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition seeking its disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought a direction for the disposal of its appeal pending before the third respondent. The assessee relied on a circular of 2017, implying it should not be insisted upon to pay 20% of the tax demanded for the appeal to be considered. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the revenue. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue would be bound by the outcome of the appeal and the court's order regarding the stay of recovery proceedings.

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 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4167 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER/S: MALAYANKIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.605, HEAD OFFICE, MARKET JUNCTION, MALAYINKIL P O, TRIVANDRUM-695571, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RAMACHANDRAN K. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, FIRST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KAWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KAWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.4167 OF 2020(U) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 13th day of February 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 Appeal preferred before the third respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 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.P2 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.4167 OF 2020(U) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.1.2020 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN THE CASES OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES ON THE ISSUE OF SECTION 80 P DEDUCTION. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.28170 OF 2019 IN SIMILAR CASE. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.12.2019 IN WP(C) NO.27295 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN SIMILAR MATER IN THE CASE OF PACS. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2019 IN WPC NO. 31037 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT, IN SIMILAR MATER IN THE CASE OF PACS.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →