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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3924/2020HC KeralaKLHC01010940202012 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court directed that the disposal should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mylachel Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging Ext.P9, which refers to an assessment order. The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their appeal and interim application filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent) against this assessment order. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary, P.A. Gopakumar. The respondents include the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The fourth respondent is the General Manager of M/s Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal and interim application filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their appeal and interim application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order. The petitioner also sought to prevent recovery proceedings until a decision on the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the disposal of the appeal or the interim application. However, the court's direction to dispose of the appeal without insisting on 20% of the tax demanded implies a potential issue or practice by the revenue regarding pre-deposit requirements.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3924 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: MYLACHEL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.683,OOTTASEKHARAMANGALAM.P.O, ARYANCODE,TRIVANDRUM-695125, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.A.GOPAKUMAR. 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. 4 THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,HEAD OFFICE,FORT P.O,TRIVANDRUM-695023. OTHER PRESENT: SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3924 OF 2020(M) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P9 and seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal and interim application preferred before the third respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order.

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 the 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.3924 OF 2020(M) 3

WP(C).No.3924 OF 2020(M) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20-12-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4- 1-2020 SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPLICATION OF STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P5OF 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 P6OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.28170 OF 2019 I SIMILAR CASE. EXHIBIT P7OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.12.2019 IN WP(C)O.27295 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN SIMILAR MATER IN THE CASE OF PACS EXHIBIT P8OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2019 IN WP(C)NO.31037 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN SIMILAR MATER IN CASE OF PACS. EXHIBIT P9OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.2.2020 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 226(3)OF THE ACT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT,THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK,TRIVANDRUM.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →