THE VAZHAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO. 751 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7511/2020HC KeralaKLHC01019552202011 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 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 appeals (Exts.P3, P6, and P9) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard. The disposal is to be completed within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that the appeals should be decided without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings stemming from the assessment orders are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is reached on the appeals. The ratio of this judgment is that appellate authorities should dispose of pending appeals expeditiously and that interim relief regarding tax demands can be granted in such directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Vazhakulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the timely disposal of appeals (Exts.P3, P6, and P9) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the second respondent). These appeals were against assessment orders (Exts.P1, P4, and P7). The petitioner sought a directive for the Commissioner to decide these appeals expeditiously. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3 and Aluva Range, is the first respondent. The assessment years are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeals filed by the petitioner? The petitioner argued for a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeals. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly name the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act that are the subject of the appeals, but the context implies issues related to tax demands arising from assessment orders.

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 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7511 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER: THE VAZHAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 751, VAZHAKULAM.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686670. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 AND ALUVA RANGE,TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA.P.O, PIN-685584. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL REVENUE TOWER,KOCHI-682018. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.7511 OF 2020 -2-

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals preferred before the second respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1, P4 and P7. 2. 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 Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals 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 orders shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL vv JUDGE

WP(C).No.7511 OF 2020 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY-2013-14 DATED 01.03.2016 EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 01.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2013- 14 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2016 EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 22.12.2016 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 22.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014- 15 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2017 EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017- 18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.01.2020. EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1)AY 2015-16 DATED 10.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND NOTICE 12.02.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX FOR AY 2013-14,2014-15,2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

WP(C).No.7511 OF 2020 -4- EXHIBIT P12 AOF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 11.02.202O OF 20% OF TAX FOR AY 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →