THE EZHUPUNNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.953, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) 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 pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, only on the procedural aspect of its disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Ezhupunna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of its appeal (Ext.P3) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent). This appeal was against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Alappuzha (first respondent). The petitioner sought a directive for the speedy disposal of their pending appeal. The assessment year(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of an appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition seeking 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 assessee? The assessee contended that their appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was pending and sought a direction for its expeditious disposal. The assessee relied on a circular of 2017, presumably to support their plea regarding the conditions for appeal disposal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act were explicitly debated in the context of the appeal's merits, as the writ petition focused on procedural directions.
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. sab AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
WP(C).No.4897 OF 2020(J) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 25.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S.156 DATED 25.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017- 18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.1.2020. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2020 TAX.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
