M/S.CHITTATTUKARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/6804/2020HC KeralaKLHC01018019202006 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision is to be taken in accordance with the law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court directed that the disposal should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular of 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The principle established is that appellate authorities should dispose of appeals expeditiously, and interim relief regarding recovery can be granted pending appeal disposal, without strict adherence to pre-deposit requirements in certain circumstances as per circulars.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Chittattukara Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition seeking its disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that they have filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and sought a direction for its disposal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue's position, if any, regarding the appeal's disposal was considered in conjunction with the petitioner's request. The core issue revolves around the timely adjudication of the pending appeal by the appellate authority.

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 FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6804 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: M/S.CHITTATTUKARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD. NO.1443, V/III, VALIPALLAMTHURUTH, PALAMTHURUTHU, CHENDAMANGALAM.P.O., COCHIN-683512, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN-CHARGE, SHRI PRADEEP.E.G. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KAP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA, COCHIN-683101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 28/243, 'POORNIMA', NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY, KOCHI-682036. SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6804 OF 2020(A) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order Ext.P1. 2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd 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 order shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE

WP(C).No.6804 OF 2020(A) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2019 FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION STATEMENT PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 18.2.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-

18.

EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 28.2.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY-2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →