THRITHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/5618/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014818202026 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the statutory appeals filed by the petitioner at the earliest. The Court also directed that recovery proceedings and the collection of assessed tax be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of these appeals. This decision was based on the petitioner's reliance on a previous judgment in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 and the admission by the revenue's Standing Counsel that the facts were substantially similar. The Court explicitly referred to the Full Bench decision in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287] as a basis for its directions. The ratio decidendi is that when facts are similar to a binding precedent, and the revenue concedes to the similarity, the court should grant similar relief, including expediting appeals and staying recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thrithala Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their statutory appeals pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and for a stay on recovery proceedings. The petitioner relied on a previous Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 and connected cases, which directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay on recovery during the pendency of appeals. The Standing Counsel for the revenue admitted that the facts of the present case were substantially similar to those in the cited judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the statutory appeals filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be considered and disposed of at the earliest? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) 2. Whether recovery proceedings and collection of assessed tax should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the petitioner's statutory appeals? (Question of procedural fairness and interim relief) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 and connected cases directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay on recovery proceedings during the pendency of appeals. They contended that this precedent should be followed. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the revenue admitted that the facts of the present case were substantially the same as those in the Division Bench judgment cited by the petitioner, implying agreement with the petitioner's request to follow the precedent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.5618 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5618 OF 2020(B) PETITIONER/S: THRITHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, P O BOX NO.1, TSCB BUILDINGS, THRITHALA POST, PATTAMBI, KERALA-679534., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SUKUMARAN P V. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT. ARYA ANIL SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, PALAKKAD -678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR-680001. OTHER PRESENT: SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-2- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 26th day of February 2020 Heard Advocate Anil D. Nair for petitioner and Advocate Jose Joseph for respondents.

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.

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.

-3- Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the statutory appeals filed by the petitioner herein at the earliest taking note of 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 to keep in abeyance recovery proceedings and collection of tax assessed, pending disposal of such appeals. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE jjj -4-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR AY-2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE YEAR 2017- 18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.02.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →