THE PALLASSANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F.1589 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6147/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015326202002 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeals (Exts.P3 and P8) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court further directed that the disposal should be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court specified that the Commissioner should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular from 2017. Until a decision is taken on the appeals, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment orders are to be kept in abeyance. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pallassana Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent) to dispose of their appeals and interim applications. These appeals were filed against assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (2nd respondent). The petitioner sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of appeals and interim applications, specifically mentioning Exts.P3, P8, P5, and P10. The assessment orders were marked as Exts.P1 and P6.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 1st respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeals and interim applications filed by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their appeals and interim applications, indicating a desire for timely resolution of their tax matters. The petitioner also sought a direction that the disposal should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the matter was heard by the learned counsel on both sides, implying the revenue was represented. However, specific arguments or contentions from the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.

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.6147 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: THE PALLASSANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F.1589 PALLASSANA POST,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678505. REP.BY THE SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT(A),THRISSUR-01. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5,AAYAKAR BHAVAN,INCOME TAX OFFICE,ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD,PALAKKAD-678014. 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.6147 OF 2020(P) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P3 and P8 appeals and Exts.P5 and P10 interim applications preferred before the 1st respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1 and P6. 2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3 and P8 appeals 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 orders shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE

WP(C).No.6147 OF 2020(P) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26-12-2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ON 26-12-2018. EXHIBIT P3OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 28-01-2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE TAXPAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 28.01.2018 EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION FILED WITH THE EXHIBIT P3 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P6OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ON 24-12-2019. EXHIBIT P8OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 29.01.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9OF THE TAXPAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 28.01.2020. EXHIBIT P10OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P8 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P11OF THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020. EXHIBIT P12OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2019 PASSED IN W.A.NO.1536/2019 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. //// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →