MUDAVANMUGHAL SERGVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.T 847 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5438/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014485202025 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) 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 be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the appeal. This decision was based on the admission by the Revenue's Standing Counsel that the facts of the present case were substantially similar to those in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019, a judgment where similar directions were issued. The Court also took note of the Full Bench decision in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The primary principle applied is that when facts are similar to a precedent and the revenue concedes to the similarity, the relief granted in the precedent should be extended.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mudavanmughal Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of its statutory appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and for a stay of recovery proceedings. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 and connected cases, which had directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery during the pendency of appeals. The Revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest? 2. Whether recovery proceedings and collection of assessed tax should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the statutory appeal? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that a Division Bench of the High Court, in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 and connected cases, had directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner sought similar relief. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's Standing Counsel admitted that the facts of the present case were substantially the same and similar to the facts noted by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019, and therefore, the said judgment could be followed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.5438 OF 2020

W.A No.1536 of 2019

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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5438 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: MUDAVANMUGHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.T 847, POOJAPPURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,PIN-695 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(1).KOWDIAR,TRIVANDRUM-695 003 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),TRIVANDRUM-695 003 JOSE WINSON FOR CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5438 OF 2020 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 25th day of February 2020 Heard Sri. C.A.Jojo, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Winson holding for 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 WP(C).No.5438 OF 2020 3 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 appeal. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE uu 27.02.2020 WP(C).No.5438 OF 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1

AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 09.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 DATED 09.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2012-13 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2020 EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 21.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 DATED 21.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2020

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →