RAMAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2156 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The disposal should be in accordance with 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, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order were ordered to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Ramamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala by way of a writ petition seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal before the first appellate authority, which remained undecided, leading to the present writ petition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/administrative direction). The petitioner contended that their appeal has been pending and sought a direction for its disposal. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against the direction for disposal. The judgment does not explicitly name the provisions of the Income Tax Act that are the subject of the appeal itself, but the context implies a dispute arising from an assessment order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the second respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order Ext.P1. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second 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 JUDGE csl
W.P.(C) No.8580/2020 3
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026