THE CHENTRAPPINNI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7914/2020HC KeralaKLHC01020659202013 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in light of a Division Bench decision in W.A.No. 1529 of 2019 and connected cases, which considered the peculiar aspects and the Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], held that the insistence on payment of 20% of the tax assessed while the appeal is pending is unsustainable. The Court found the demand for remittance of 20% of the tax assessed, pending consideration of the appeals, to be illegal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the petitioner's appeals expeditiously. Further recovery proceedings based on the assessment orders, including the demand for 20% of the tax, were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the appeals are decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Chentrappinni Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. It is aggrieved by assessment orders for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2017-2018. The petitioner filed appeals and stay petitions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The respondents issued notices demanding remittance of 20% of the disputed tax due. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking expeditious consideration of its appeals and stay petitions, and a stay on recovery proceedings, including the demand for 20% of the tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the insistence on remittance of 20% of the tax assessed, while an appeal against the assessment order is pending, is legally sustainable? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a stay on recovery proceedings and challenged the demand for 20% of the tax due, arguing it was an impediment to their appeal process. Revenue's Contention: The revenue insisted on the payment of 20% of the tax due as a condition for stay, as per standard procedure.

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 V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7914 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER/S: THE CHENTRAPPINNI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. R. 276, CHENTRAPPINNI P.O. THRISSUR 680 687, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(10, THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR 680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.7914 of 2020 2 Dated this the 13th day of March, 2020

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P7 assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2017-2018 respectively. The petitioner preferred Exts.P4 and P10 appeals along with Exts.P6 and P12 stay petitions. Exts.P5 and P11 notices demanding remittance of 20% of the tax due, which is in dispute before the respondents. The prayer in the writ petition is for expeditious consideration of either the appeals or the stay petitions and to stay the recovery proceedings including the insistence to pay 20% of the amount as demanded under Exts.P5 and P11. 2. The issue regarding imposition of the condition of remittance of 20% of the tax demanded was considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court and as per the judgment in W.A.No. 1529 of 2019 and connected cases. After taking note of the peculiar aspects involved and the decision of the Full Bench in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], the Division Bench held the insistence for payment of 20% of the tax assessed, while the appeal against the assessment order is pending, to be bad.

3.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department also. In the light of the Division Bench decision, the demand for remittance of 20% of the tax assessed pending consideration of the appeals, is illegal. The writ petition is therefore disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P10 appeals filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. In the meanwhile, further proceedings for recovery based on Exts.P1 and P7 assessment orders, including the demand under Exts.P5 and P11, shall be kept in abeyance. V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/13.03.2020

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29/1/2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29/1/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 18/1/2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/2/2020. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24/2/2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20/12/2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20/12/2019. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 18/1/2020. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.2.2020. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24/2/2020. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/7/2019 IN W.A. NO. 1536 OF 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →