KADAKKARAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1125, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
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 taken in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court directed that the payment of 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon for the disposal of the appeal, referencing a circular of 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The judgment does not address the merits of the appeal itself, but rather the procedural aspect of its disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kadakkarappally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal. The appeal, marked as Ext.P3, was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a directive for the expeditious resolution of this appeal. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Alappuzha. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition to expedite the appellate process.
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? The petitioner contended that they have filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the second respondent (CIT(A)) against the assessment order (Ext.P1) and sought a direction for its disposal. The petitioner relied on a circular of 2017, implicitly suggesting that the condition of paying 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon for the disposal of the appeal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or case law were mentioned by either party in the provided text.
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 second 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 second 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 vv JUDGE
WP(C).No.6307 OF 2020 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S.156 DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017- 18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.1.2010. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE LETTER OF DEMAND DATED 3.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //// PA TO JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
