KUNHIMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.C 4682 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The disposal is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that the payment of 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself but focused on ensuring its timely adjudication.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kunhimangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of its appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 and TPS (first respondent). The petitioner sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of their appeal. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
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 sought a direction for the disposal of their appeal against the assessment order. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the disposal of the appeal. The core issue was the delay in the appellate process and the petitioner's request for a time-bound resolution.
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.P2 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.P2 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.6231 OF 2020 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 11.2.2020 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT FOR AY 2017-18. //// PA TO JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
