PARAVUR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1649 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/8584/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021091202018 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 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 3rd respondent should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per 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 timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paravur Regional Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of an appeal (Ext.P2) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent). This appeal was against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (2nd respondent). The Central Board of Direct Taxes (1st respondent) was also a party. 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 3rd respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a specified period? (Question of procedure). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their appeal before the CIT(A). They relied on a circular of 2017, implicitly suggesting that certain conditions for appeal disposal, like payment of 20% of the tax demanded, should not be insisted upon in their case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel on both sides were heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are mentioned in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WP(C).No.8584 OF 2020(W) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8584 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER/S: PARAVUR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1649 HEAD OFFICE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR P. O., KOLLAM - 691301, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY C. PRASAD. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, KOLLAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.8584 OF 2020(W) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the 3rd 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 3rd 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.8584 OF 2020(W) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AABAT5442P DATED 10.12.2018 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL DATED 14.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P3OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.PAN AABAT5442P/2012-13 DATED 10.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 12.02.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P2 APPEAL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →