THE VAMANAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.927 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The disposal is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court directed that the appeal should be decided without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated 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 the merits of the underlying tax dispute.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Vamanapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 927, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to dispose of their appeal. This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), the first respondent. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal (Ext.P3) before the CIT(A). The core of the petitioner's grievance is the delay in the disposal of this 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 against the assessment order? The petitioner argued that their appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not been disposed of, necessitating intervention by the High Court. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. The judgment indicates that the Court heard learned counsel on both sides, implying the revenue was represented, but their specific arguments are not detailed.
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 vv JUDGE
WP(C).No.6248 OF 2020 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 09.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 09.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ONLINE APPEAL WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 16.12.2019 FILED AGAINST EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P3 APPEAL DATED 16.12.2019. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN WA NO.1639 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2020 IN WPC NO.4433 OF 2020. //// PA TO JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
