THIRUVAHIYAD-KAIRADY CO-OPERATIVE REDIT SOCIETY LTD NO.P.508 vs. THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/6133/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015262202002 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeals (Exts.P3 and P8) 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 receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court directed that the Commissioner should not insist on the payment of 20% of the demanded tax as a pre-condition for deciding the appeal, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, until a decision is taken on the appeals, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment orders are to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeals themselves but focused on ensuring their timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thiruvahtiyad-Kairady Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of appeals and interim applications 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeals and interim applications, which were pending before the said authority. The specific assessment orders and the corresponding appeals/applications were identified by exhibit numbers in the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 1st respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeals and interim applications filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the disposal of their pending appeals and interim applications against the assessment orders. The petitioner's primary grievance was the delay in the adjudication of their appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions raised by the revenue. The court heard both sides, implying the revenue was represented, but their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

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.6133 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: THIRUVAHIYAD-KAIRADY CO-OPERATIVE REDIT SOCIETY LTD NO.P.508 KAIRADY POST, ADIPERENDA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678510. REP. BY THE SECRETARY BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT(A), THRISSUR-01 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014 SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC 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.6133 OF 2020(N) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P3 and P8 appeals and Exts.P5 and P10 interim applications preferred before the 1st respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1 and P6. 2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3 and P8 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 appeal, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE

WP(C).No.6133 OF 2020(N) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ON 28.12.2018 EXHIBIT P3OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 28.01.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE TAXPAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 28.01.2019 EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION FILED WITH THE EXHIBIT P3 APPEAL EXHIBIT P6OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2019 PASSED B THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ON 24.12.2019 EXHIBIT P8OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 29.01.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9OF THE TAXPAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 28.01.2020 EXHIBIT P10OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P8 APPEAL EXHIBIT P11OF THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020 EXHIBIT P12OF THE JUDGMENT DATE 01.07.2019 PASSED IN WA O.1536/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE THIS HONOURABLE COURT //// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →