THE PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1801 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/7760/2020HC KeralaKLHC01020450202016 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take a decision on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard. The disposal is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that the Commissioner should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is reached on the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 1801, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of an appeal (Ext.P3) 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 (first respondent). The petitioner sought a directive for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the subsequent filing of the writ petition due to the pendency of this appeal.

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? The petitioner contended that they have filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the third respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) against the assessment order (Ext.P1) and sought a direction for its disposal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly name any specific provisions of the Income Tax Act that are the subject of the appeal itself, but the context implies issues arising from an assessment order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

WP(C).No.7760 OF 2020

WA NO. 1639 OF 2019

WP(C) NO.4433 OF 2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7760 OF 2020(T) PETITIONER/S: THE PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1801 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVUR P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691301. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM, PIN- 691001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN- 695003. 3 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK), HEAD OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-PIN-691001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 16th day of March 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the third 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 third 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 SM

3 WP(C).No.7760 OF 2020

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 29.11.2019. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 29.11.2019. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL DATED 04.12.2019 , FILED AGAINST EXT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT P3 APPEAL DATED 10.03.2020. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN WA NO. 1639 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2020 IN WP(C) NO.4433 OF 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →