THE THIRUVATHRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 889, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. 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 court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Thiruvathra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of this pending appeal. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Guruvayoor. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the first respondent, which has not yet been decided.
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. (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the speedy disposal of their appeal, which has been pending before the first respondent. The petitioner relies on a circular of 2017, implying it relates to the conditions for appeal disposal or stay of recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, but specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed. However, the court's direction to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance suggests the revenue's position might have been considered in that regard.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT 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.8166 OF 2020(U) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.11.2019 EXHIBIT P2OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.11.2019 EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL DATED 9.12.2019 EXHIBIT P4OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2020 EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24.1.2020 EXHIBIT P6OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2019 IN WA 1536 OF 2019
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
