PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 335 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6590/2020HC KeralaKLHC01017232202004 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 (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. Crucially, the court directed that the appeal should be decided 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 ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should dispose of pending appeals expeditiously, and interim relief regarding recovery can be granted pending appeal disposal, especially when a relevant circular permits it.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pallipuram Village 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) (second respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner sought a timely decision on their appeal. The assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition before the High Court.

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? The petitioner contended that their appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) needed to be disposed of. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue (respondents 1 and 2) regarding the delay or the merits of the appeal. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue would be bound by the court's order.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6590 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER/S: PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 335 PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 541, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOJO RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA-688 011. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6590 OF 2020(W) 2

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.6590 OF 2020(W) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 21.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 DATED 21.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.01.2020. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE LETTER OF DEMAND DATED 07.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →