THRICKODITHANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 178 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/11041/2020HC KeralaKLHC01028406202005 June 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) (first respondent) to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court specified that this decision should be taken in accordance with the law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the court directed that the appeal should be decided without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular of 2017. Furthermore, the court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must dispose of pending appeals within a reasonable time, and interim relief in the form of a stay on recovery can be granted pending such disposal, subject to specific conditions like adherence to circulars regarding pre-deposit.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thrickodithanam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (first respondent) to dispose of an appeal (Ext.P2) filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer (third respondent). The petitioner sought a speedy disposal of their appeal, which was pending before the first respondent. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was filed against an assessment order, and the petitioner is now seeking a directive for 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 petitioner? The petitioner's contention is that their appeal (Ext.P2) against the assessment order (Ext.P1) is pending before the first respondent, and they are seeking a direction for its expeditious disposal. The petitioner relies on the principle that appeals should be decided in a timely manner. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. 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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.11041 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: THRICKODITHANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 178 THRICKODITHANAM P.O., CHENGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AYAKAR BHAVAN, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001. 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (4), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 101. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.11041 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the first 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 first 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 JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.11041 OF 2020 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL DATED 03/02/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03/02/2020 OR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR STAYING ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P4OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 28/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-

18.

EXHIBIT P5OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 28/02/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P6OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 16/03/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017- 18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →