ENANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7243/2020HC KeralaKLHC01019132202010 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 second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeals (Exts.P3, P6, and P9) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner (assessee) 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, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeals. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeals themselves but directed their expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Enanalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). These appeals (Exts.P3, P6, and P9) were preferred against assessment orders (Exts.P1, P4, and P7). The petitioner sought a directive for the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide these appeals. The assessment orders were passed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate, Ward 1, Thodupuzha.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeals filed by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought a direction from the High Court to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeals that had been filed against the assessment orders. The assessee also sought a direction to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the revenue. However, the court's direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) implies that the revenue's position, if any, was considered in the context of the pending appeals and recovery proceedings.

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 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7243 OF 2020(E) PETITIONERS: ENANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1447, AYAVANA P O, ENANALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686668, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE, WARD 1, TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA P O, PIN-685584 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE TOWER, KOCHI-682018. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.7243 OF 2020 -2-

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals preferred before the second respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1, P4 and P7. 2. 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 Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals 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 orders shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL vv JUDGE

WP(C).No.7243 OF 2020 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 18.03.2016 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S.156 DATED 18.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2013- 14 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.04.2016. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 19.12.2016 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S.156 DATED 19.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014- 15 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2017. EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017- 18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2020. EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 03.03.2010 FOR 20% OF TAX FOR AY 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →