KAITHARAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 112 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5989/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015915202028 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest. The Court further directed that recovery proceedings and the collection of assessed tax should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the appeal. This decision was based on the Full Bench decision reported in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287] and the admission by the revenue that the facts were similar to a previously decided case (W.A. No. 1536 of 2019). The ratio decidendi is that where facts are similar to a precedent and the revenue concedes to its applicability, the appellate authority should expedite the appeal and stay recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kaitharam Service Co Operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Aluva, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment dated July 1, 2019, in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 and connected cases, which directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The Standing Counsel for the respondents admitted that the facts of the present case were substantially similar to those in the cited Division Bench judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings and collection of assessed tax should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that based on the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019, the recovery proceedings should be stayed during the pendency of their appeal, as the facts are similar. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the respondents admitted that the facts were substantially the same as in the cited Division Bench judgment and agreed that the principles laid down therein could be followed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.5989 OF 2020
W.A No.1536 of 2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5989 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER: KAITHARAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 112, KAITHARAM P.O, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM 683 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ALUVA, ALUVA 683 101. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI 682 018. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.5989 OF 2020(W) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 28th day of February, 2020 Heard Sri. C.A. Jojo, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2.

Petitioner refers to and relies on judgment dated 01.07.2019 in W.A No.1536 of 2019 and connected cases to contend that the Division Bench directed disposal of appeal and granted stay of recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel admits that the facts of the case are substantially same and similar to the facts noted by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1536 of 2019, hence can be followed. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner herein at the earliest taking note of the Full Bench decision reported in The WP(C).No.5989 OF 2020(W) 3 Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287] and to keep in abeyance recovery proceedings and collection of tax assessed, pending disposal of such appeal. S.V. BHATTI

JUDGE SR

WP(C).No.5989 OF 2020(W) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.01.2020. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF DEMAND DATED 24.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. SR //True copy// PA to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →