CHALAKUDY TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD .NO. R 928 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8439/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021798202018 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Crucially, the Court directed that the 20% pre-deposit of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chalakudy Town Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to expedite the disposal of their appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a decision on their appeal without the pre-condition of paying 20% of the demanded tax, referencing a circular from 2017. The High Court heard both parties and issued directions regarding the appeal's disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Whether the condition of paying 20% of the tax demanded should be insisted upon before the appeal is considered, in light of a 2017 circular. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their appeal and argued that the 20% pre-deposit requirement should not be insisted upon, citing a 2017 circular. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, but it does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific contentions regarding the delay in appeal disposal or the applicability of the circular.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8439 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: CHALAKUDY TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD .NO. R 928 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680307 BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, THRISSUR PIN-680001 2 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, THRISSUR PIN-680001 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, THRISSUR PIN-680001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No.8439 OF 2020

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the third 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 third 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 JUDGE SM

3 WP(C).No.8439 OF 2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 26.12.2019 EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 26.12.2019 EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ONLINE APPEAL DATED 23.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE STAY PETITION DATED 27.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 220(6) EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE ORDER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/ 2019-20/1024631711(1) DATED 04.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 07.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 18.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE ORDER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/ 2019-20/1025659475(1) DATED 24.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2020 EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE ORDER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/ 2019-20/1026120860(1) DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE REVIEW PETITION EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN WA NO.1639/2019 EXHIBIT P12 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATE 17.02.2020 IN WP(C)NO.4433/2020

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →