THE ARUVIKKARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.603 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)

WP(C)/6254/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016543202002 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) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that the appeal should be decided without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order were to be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeal. The principle established is that appellate authorities should expedite pending appeals and that recovery can be stayed pending appeal, especially when a circular provides for such leniency regarding pre-deposit. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Aruvikara Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 603, represented by its Managing Director, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of an appeal (Ext.P3) that had been filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3). The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the second respondent (CIT(A)) against the assessment order.

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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, the assessee, approached the High Court seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The specific arguments made by the assessee's counsel are not detailed in the judgment, but the prayer indicates a desire for a timely resolution of the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard. While the revenue's specific arguments are not explicitly stated, their participation in the hearing implies they were present and heard. The court's direction to not insist on 20% of the tax demanded suggests a potential point of contention or a matter addressed by the court's order.

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 MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6254 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: THE ARUVIKKARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.603 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 564. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6254 OF 2020 -2-

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.6254 OF 2020 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013 DATED 20.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION A56 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 20.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ONLINE APEAL DATED 16.1.2020 FILED AGAINST EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT-P3 APPEAL DATED 12.2.2020. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.7.2019 IN W.A.NO.1639 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.2.2020 IN WPC NO.4433 OF 2020. //// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →