SREEKANDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 974 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The disposal is to be in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that the decision should be made without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular issued in 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 based on existing circulars.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sreekandamangalam Service Co Operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a directive for the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. The revenue was represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment year is not specified 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 appeal filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank sought a direction from the High Court to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of its appeal against the assessment order. No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the petitioner in this regard. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, implying the revenue was represented. However, no specific contentions or reliance on authorities by the revenue are detailed in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the second 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 second respondent to take a decision on Ext.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 order shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/
WP(C).No.6594 OF 2020(Y) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY- 2017-2018 DATED 27.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 DATED 27.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.1.2020. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE LETTER OF DEMAND DATED 26.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
