MARANAGTTUPILLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3556 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5035/2020HC KeralaKLHC01013689202020 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

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 receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court directed that the payment of 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon, 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 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, Maranagttupilly Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal (Ext.P3) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent). The appeal was against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner sought a direction for the timely disposal of the appeal, and the court considered the matter on February 20, 2020.

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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of its appeal before the second respondent. The petitioner relied on a circular of 2017, implying it should not be insisted upon to pay 20% of the tax demanded for the appeal to be considered. Revenue's Contention: No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue in the judgment. The judgment indicates that the court heard both sides.

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 THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5035 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: MARANAGTTUPILLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3556 MARANAGTTUPILLY P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC SMT.DONA AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM RANGE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. SC, JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5035 OF 2020(D) 2

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 sab JUDGE

WP(C).No.5035 OF 2020(D) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.20219 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 23.12.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL DATED 23.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4.2.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.2.2020 IN WPC NO 3838 OF 2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →