THE MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OP.EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P.629 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/4841/2020HC KeralaKLHC01013125202020 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition by issuing a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. Crucially, this decision must 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. The court also specified that the Commissioner should not insist 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 specific finding on the merits of the appeal itself was not addressed, as the writ petition was for direction of disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mannarkkad Taluk Co-op. Employees Co-operative Society Limited, 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). This appeal was against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Palakkad (first respondent). The petitioner sought a timely decision on their appeal. The assessment year(s) and the specific amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent filing of the writ petition due to the alleged delay in disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the assessee? (Question of law and procedure) The assessee (petitioner) contended that they have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and sought a direction for its expeditious disposal. The assessee relied on a circular of 2017 regarding the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. The revenue (respondent) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue's potential insistence on the 20% payment was a point of consideration.

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.4841 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER/S: THE MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OP.EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P.629 MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.K.MOHANDAS, AGED 55, S/O. T.APPU NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 021. 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.4841 OF 2020(E) 2

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.4841 OF 2020(E) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 26.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 14.1.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.1.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →