AYYANTHOLE PANCHAYAT SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.471 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/10755/2020HC KeralaKLHC01027773202002 June 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext. P3) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The disposal is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that the payment of 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon for the disposal of the appeal, 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 High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ayyanthole Panchayat Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 471, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal (Ext. P3) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the first respondent). This appeal was preferred against an assessment order (Ext. P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thrissur (the second respondent). The petitioner sought a direction for the timely disposal of the appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated.

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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank sought a direction from the High Court for the disposal of its appeal before the first respondent. The petitioner relied on a circular of 2017 regarding the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, implying it should not be insisted upon for appeal disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the matter was heard on both sides, indicating the revenue was represented. However, specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.10755 OF 2020
W.A.NO.1536 OF 2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUE AY, THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.10755 OF 2020(T) PETITIONER/S: AYYANTHOLE PANCHAYAT SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.471 AYYANTHOLE, KARIATTUKARA, ELTHURUTH P.O., THRISSUR- 680 611, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.10755 OF 2020(T) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 2nd day of June 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 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.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.10755 OF 2020(T) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2019 WITH COMPUTATION STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 2017- 2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.1.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 19.3.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2019 IN W.A.NO.1536 OF 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →