ETTUMANOOR BLOCK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6166/2020HC KeralaKLHC01016328202002 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.P2) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Crucially, the Court directed that the disposal should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing 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 High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ettumanoor Block Urban Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of an appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This appeal was against an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The amount in dispute is not stated. The writ petition was filed seeking expeditious disposal of the pending appeal.

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 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) needs to be disposed of expeditiously. The revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment regarding the disposal of the appeal. The core issue is the delay in the appellate process and the need for a judicial directive to expedite it. The judgment does not name any specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or any authorities/circulars/precedents relied upon by either party in the context of the appeal's merits, but the court's direction references a circular of 2017 regarding payment of 20% of the tax demanded.

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 MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6166 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER: ETTUMANOOR BLOCK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.K 1026, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 630, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V.C.JAYAKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.C.T.SUJA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2 THE PRINCIPAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGAMBADAM, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6166 OF 2020(U) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the 3rd 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 3rd 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.6166 OF 2020(U) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 05.02.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P4OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE AY 2017-18.ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 04TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 18.02.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18. //// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →