KOYYODE SERVICE4 CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8396/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021613202017 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with law. This decision is to be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 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 are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The judgment does not record any specific issue left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Koyyode Service Co-operative Bank C 6408, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought a direction for the consideration and disposal of an appeal (Ext.P2) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) filed before the Income Tax Officer. These were filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner was represented by its Secretary and counsel. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The matter was heard on March 17, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order. (Question of procedure/mandamus) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the disposal of its pending appeal and stay petition. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel beyond this request. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, implying the revenue was represented and likely presented arguments, but the specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed in the judgment.

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.8396 OF 2020(Y) PETITIONER: M/s.KOYYODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK C 6408 KOYYODE.P.O, KANNUR-670621, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHISNA.T.C. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KANNUR-670006. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN,MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 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.8396/2020 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the third respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Ext.P4 stay petition before the first respondent/Income Tax Officer 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.8396/2020 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THGE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY-2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DISPOSING THE STAY PETITION FOR THE AY 2017-18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →