THE KANDALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK -1410 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6277/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016580202003 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with the 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 ordered that the decision should be taken 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 order (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should dispose of appeals expeditiously and that recovery should be stayed pending such disposal, subject to the conditions outlined in relevant circulars.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kandalloor Farmers Service Cooperative Bank, filed an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay application (Ext.P5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging an assessment order (Ext.P2) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Alappuzha. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeal and stay application. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal and stay application before the first respondent and the subsequent writ petition seeking a direction for disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the appeal and stay application filed by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that they have filed an appeal and a stay application and sought a direction for their disposal. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The issue revolves around the timely disposal of appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The core of the dispute is the petitioner's right to have their appeal heard and decided expeditiously, and to have recovery proceedings stayed pending the appeal's outcome. The judgment does not name specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or refer to any specific circulars or precedents relied upon by either party, other than a general reference to a circular of 2017 regarding payment of 20% of the tax demanded.

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 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6277 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER/S: THE KANDALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK -1410 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KANDALLOOR P.O., KANDALLOOR, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690535. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.V.JAYA RAGI SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL) SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN SHRI.SARATH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BAKER HILLS KOTTAYAM-686002. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, ALAPPUZHA, ARATTUKULANKARA COMPLEX, A.N.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688011. SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6277 OF 2020(H) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P5 stay application preferred before the first respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order Ext.P2. 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 JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.6277 OF 2020(H) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME DATED 29.03.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 25.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23.01.2020 FILED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 10.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →