THE VALLIKUNNAM KADUVINAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 1392 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/6287/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016561202003 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with law. This decision is to be made after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court specified that the decision should be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court directed that the decision should be made without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular from 2017. Furthermore, until a decision is reached on the appeal, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders are to be kept in abeyance. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should dispose of appeals expeditiously, and interim relief can be granted by keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance, especially when a relevant circular exists regarding pre-deposit.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Vallikunnam Kaduvinal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 1392, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal (Ext.P2) and an interim application for stay (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). These were filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a directive for the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. The respondents were the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal and interim application for stay filed by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank sought a direction from the High Court to expedite the disposal of its appeal and stay application before the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the disposal of the appeal. The court heard both learned counsel.

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 TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6287 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER/S: THE VALLIKUNNAM KADUVINAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 1392 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VALLIKUNNAM PUTHENCHANTHA POST, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 690 501. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.V.JAYA RAGI SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL) SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN SHRI.SARATH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BAKER HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, T. K. ROAD, THIRUVALLA, ALAPPUZHA - 689 101. SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6287 OF 2020(I) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 interim application for stay preferred before the first respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order Ext.P1

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first 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 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 JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.6287 OF 2020(I) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2019 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 8.2.2020 FILED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 10.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →