THE THIRUPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3296 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WADRD - 2 (2)

WP(C)/8028/2020HC KeralaKLHC01021085202016 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with the law. This decision must be made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing. The disposal is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that the decision should be made without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Until the appeal is decided, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance. No specific issue was left undecided; the court provided a clear direction for the disposal of the pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Thirupuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.3296, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their appeal and stay petition filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). These appeals were against an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), against the assessment order (Ext.P1).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal and stay petition filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/direction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the timely disposal of their appeal and stay petition. They rely on a circular of 2017 regarding the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, implying the revenue had an opportunity to present its case, but their specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment.

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 MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8028 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: THE THIRUPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3296 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, THIRUPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 133. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WADRD - 2 (2) OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3 THE GENERAL MANAGER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.8028/2020 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition preferred before the second respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against Ext.P1 assessment order.

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second 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 csl

W.P.(C) No.8028/2020 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 13.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 13.12.2017. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL DATED 22.12.2017, FILED AGAINST EXT-P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT-P3 APPEAL DATED 20.2.2020. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.7.2019 IN W.A.NO.1639 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.2.2020 IN WP(C) NO.4433 OF 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →