VALIYANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8342/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021457202017 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. The court specified that this decision should 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 appeal should be decided without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, all recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is reached on the appeal. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Valiyannur Service Co-operative Bank, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of its appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent), and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (second respondent) was also a party.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank sought a direction for the disposal of its appeal, implying a grievance regarding the delay in adjudication. The petitioner relied on a circular of 2017 regarding the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, suggesting this might be a point of contention or a condition for hearing the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, but it does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments. However, the court's direction to dispose of the appeal without insisting on the 20% payment suggests that the revenue might have been insisting on this condition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 WP(C).No.8342 OF 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8342 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: VALIYANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK MATTANNU ROAD, VARAM PO, KANNUR 670594 BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1. 2. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE – 670 006 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAKD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE – 673001 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE – 673 001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2 WP(C).No.8342 OF 2020 JUDGMENT Dated this the 17th day of March 2020 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.P2 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.8342 OF 2020

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 12/12/2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2020 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DISPOSING THE STAY PETITION FOR THE AY 2017-18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →