THE MAYYANAD REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

WP(C)/7454/2020HC KeralaKLHC01019530202011 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment. This decision is to be made in accordance with the law and after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. Crucially, the Court ordered that the disposal should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders 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 disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of its appeal and interim application pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was against assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner sought a direction for the timely disposal of these pending matters.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal and interim application filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal and interim application. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner beyond this request. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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.7454 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: THE MAYYANAD REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MAYYANAD BANK BUILDING, MAYYANAD, KOLLAMN - 691 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.4, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM - 691001. ADV.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.7454 OF 2020(F) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 11th day of March 2020 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 interim application preferred before the first respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders 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 orders shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL ACM JUDGE

WP(C).No.7454 OF 2020(F) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/11/2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO.35 DATED 26/12/2019 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 03/03/2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28/11/2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE CHALLAN NO.00017 DATED 13/02/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →