MALANAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/8384/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021524202017 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision was to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court directed that the decision should be made 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 (Ext.P1) be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeal. The principle here is that the High Court can direct statutory authorities to dispose of pending matters within a reasonable time and can grant interim relief in appropriate cases.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Malanad Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction for the disposal of an appeal (Ext.P2) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent). This appeal was against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (second respondent). The petitioner sought to expedite the appellate process and requested that recovery proceedings be stayed until the appeal was decided. The respondents were the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether a direction should be issued to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously. The petitioner sought this direction, implying a grievance regarding the delay in the appellate process. The Court also considered the petitioner's request to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance until the appeal was decided. The Court's decision would turn on its power to direct the disposal of statutory appeals and its discretion regarding interim relief like stay of recovery. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue side, other than their presence through their counsel.

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 TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8384 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER: MALANAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED NEDUMKANDOM POST, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 553. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.NIKHIL JOHN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INCOME TAX, OFFICE, MAHIMA TOWERS, TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 584. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), G-51, PARAPILLY LANE, MANORAMAM JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.8384/2020 2

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the third respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against Ext.P1 assessment order. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third 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 csl

W.P.(C) No.8384/2020 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1023469823(1) DATED 30.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 DATED 19.02.2020 FILED FOR THE YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT FOR FORM NO.

35.

EXHIBIT P4OF THE NOTICE NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1025033688(1) DATED 12.02.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2019 IN W.A. NO. 1536/2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →