THE THODUPUZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7091/2020HC KeralaKLHC01018597202009 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent) to decide the pending appeals (Exts.P2 to P2(e)) within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. This decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Crucially, the Court ordered that the disposal should be without insisting 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 appeals. The specific grounds for the appeals or the merits of the assessment orders were not adjudicated upon.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Thodupuzha Service Cooperative Bank Limited, filed multiple appeals (Exts.P2 to P2(e)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent) challenging assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P1(e)) passed by the Income Tax Officer (2nd respondent). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of these pending appeals. The assessment years are not specified. The dispute involves tax demands arising from the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeals filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). They rely on a circular of 2017 regarding the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the matter was heard by the learned counsel on both sides, implying the revenue was represented, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text. The court's direction to dispose of the appeals without insisting on the 20% payment suggests a potential point of contention or a concession by the revenue.

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 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7091 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER: THE THODUPUZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.969, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SOMAN.T.R. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM SRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENTS: 1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERNAKULAM, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 2 AND TPS THODUPUZHA, MAHIMA TOWERS, TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA-685 584. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(c). No. 7091 of 2020 2

J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P2, P2 (a), P2 (b), P2 (c), P2 (d), & P2 (e) appeals preferred before the 1st respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1, P1 (a), P1 (b), P1 (c), P1 (d), & P1 (e).

2.

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to take decision on Exts.P2, P2 (a), P2 (b), P2 (c), P2 (d), & P2 (e) 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 decision is taken on the appeals, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. (Sd/-) AMIT RAWAL LU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 27.12.2016. EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2011-12 DATED 27.12.2016. EXHIBIT P1 BOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 28.03.2015 AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 DATED 09.06.2015. EXHIBIT P1COF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 19.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1 DOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 22.12.2016. EXHIBIT P1 EOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 20.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2OF APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 25.01.2017. EXHIBIT P2 AOF APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR AY 2011-12 DATED 25.01.2017. EXHIBIT P2 BOF APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 14.07.2017. EXHIBIT P2 COF APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 25.04.2016. EXHIBIT P2 DOF APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 25.01.2017. EXHIBIT P2 EOF APPEAL FILED IN FORM 35 FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 23.01.2020. EXHIBIT P3OF STAY APPLICATION FOR AY 2010- 11 DATED 20.02.2020. EXHIBIT P3 AOF STAY APPLICATION FOR AY 2011- 12 DATED 20.02.2020. EXHIBIT P3 BOF STAY APPLICATION FOR AY 2012- 13 DATED 27.02.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COF STAY APPLICATION FOR AY 2013- 14 DATED 20.02.2020. EXHIBIT P3 DOF STAY APPLICATION FOR AY 2014- 15 DATED 20.02.2020. EXHIBIT P3 EOF STAY APPLICATION FOR AY 2017- 18 DATED 27.02.2020. EXHIBIT P4OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH IN WRIT APPEAL 1529/2019 DATED 01.07.2019. //// PA to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →