PWD IRRIGATION AND LSGD EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.T 638 vs. THE INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (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 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 from 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 timely disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, PWD Irrigation and LSGD Employee Co-operative Society Ltd. No. T 638, 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) (2nd respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Ward-2(1), Trivandrum (1st respondent). The petitioner sought a timely resolution of their appeal. The assessment year(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent filing of the writ petition to expedite its disposal.
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? (Question of procedure/direction) The petitioner argued for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of their appeal. The revenue's specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not mention any specific legal provisions or precedents relied upon by either party in relation to the core issue of directing the disposal of the appeal.
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 2nd 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 2nd 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 nak JUDGE
WP(C).No.6145 OF 2020(P) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2020 EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE NOTICE FOR PAYMENT OF 20% OF TAX ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.02.2020. //// P.A TO JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Salman vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 26 Oct 2026
