THE EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.01 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6606/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016774202004 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeals (Exts.P3, P6, P9, and P12) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court specified that this decision should be taken in accordance with the law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the court ordered that the appeals should be decided without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular issued in 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 court did not decide the merits of the appeals themselves but rather directed their expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Edavanakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, 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 were against assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner sought a directive for the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide appeals marked as Exts.P3, P6, P9, and P12, which were filed against assessment orders Exts.P1, P4, P7, and P10 respectively. The matter was heard by the High Court on March 4, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeals filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, The Edavanakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, sought a direction from the High Court to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeals filed by the bank against the assessment orders. The petitioner implicitly argued for a timely resolution of their appellate grievances. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel on both sides were heard. While the revenue's specific arguments are not detailed, their presence indicates they were aware of and participated in the proceedings. The court's direction to dispose of the appeals 'in accordance with law' suggests that the revenue's position would be considered during the appellate proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WP(C).No.6606 OF 2020(A) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6606 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER/S: THE EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.01 EDAVANAKKAD P.O.ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 502, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), INCOME TAX OFFICE, LG TOWERS, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM-682 005. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE TOWER, KOCHI-682 018. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6606 OF 2020(A) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P3, P6, P9 and P12 appeals preferred before the second respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1, P4,P7 and P10. 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, P9 and P12 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 appeals, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.6606 OF 2020(A) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER YA 2013-14 DATED 6.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 6.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2013-14 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.2.2016 EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2014-15 DATED 30.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 30.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.2.2017 EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 26.12.2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR U/S 156 DATED 26.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2015-16 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.2018 EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.1.2020 EXHIBIT P13 AOF THE INTIMATION U/.S 143(1) DATED 1.10.2019 FOR AY 2018-19

WP(C).No.6606 OF 2020(A) 4 EXHIBIT P14 AOF THE 20% DEMAND DATED 19.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →