THE ADHYAPAKA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.A 300, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, to decide the appeal application (Ext.P3) 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 law, after providing 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 orders were ordered 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 recovery can be stayed pending such disposal, particularly when a relevant circular addresses the pre-deposit requirement.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Adhyapaka Co-operative Bank Ltd, filed an appeal application (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (second respondent) challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of this appeal. The assessment year(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal application before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition seeking its expeditious disposal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeal application filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to expedite the disposal of their appeal application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner relied on a circular of 2017 regarding the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, implying the revenue was represented. However, specific arguments or reliance on any authorities, circulars, or precedents by the revenue are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
against Exts.P1 assessment order.
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 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.5044 OF 2020(E) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S.156 DATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017- 18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2020. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE LETTER OF DEMAND DATED 24.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
