THE CHETHALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1462, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The disposal is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court directed that the appeal should not be insisted upon for payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular of 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The ratio is that a pending appeal should be disposed of expeditiously, and recovery can be stayed pending such disposal, particularly when a circular allows for waiver of pre-deposit conditions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Chethallur 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.P2) 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 directive for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the 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. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank seeks a direction for the disposal of its appeal before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner relies on a circular of 2017, implying it pertains to the conditions for appeal disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard. No specific arguments or contentions for the revenue are detailed in the judgment.
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.P2 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.P2 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.4831 OF 2020(D) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXT.P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 EXT.P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
