THE SHOLAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P 1169 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8805/2020HC KeralaKLHC01022327202026 June 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with 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 Tribunal was directed not to insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular from 2017. Until a decision is reached on the appeal, recovery proceedings stemming from the appellate order are to be kept in abeyance. The principle established is that appellate authorities should dispose of appeals expeditiously, and recovery can be stayed pending such disposal, with specific directions regarding pre-deposit requirements based on circulars.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Sholayur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (third respondent) against an appellate order (Ext.P2). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of this appeal. The assessment years are not specified. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, and the present writ petition seeking a direction for its disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to dispose of the pending appeal (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner? Assessee's contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the disposal of its appeal before the Tribunal. No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities are recorded in the judgment for the petitioner's request for disposal. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard. However, the specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.8805 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER/S: THE SHOLAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P 1169 KOTTATHARA P.O., ATTAPPADI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SANAL PAUL, AGED 38,S/O. N.V. PAUL BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678 014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR-680 021 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU,KOCHI-682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.8805 OF 2020(A) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 26th day of June 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal 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 appellate order shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.8805 OF 2020(A) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2014-15 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →