PALLURUTHY MANDALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 65 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/4809/2020HC KeralaKLHC01013094202019 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the pending appeals (Exts.P3, P6, and P9) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that the disposal should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders would be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should dispose of pending appeals expeditiously, and recovery proceedings can be stayed pending such disposal, especially when a relevant circular guides the process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Palluruthy Mandalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). These appeals were against assessment orders. The petitioner sought a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide appeals marked as Exts.P3, P6, and P9, which were filed against assessment orders marked as Exts.P1, P4, and P7 respectively. The assessment orders were passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5). The procedural history indicates that the appeals were pending before the second respondent. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeals filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure) Assessee's contention: The petitioner bank sought a direction from the High Court to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the disposal of its pending appeals against assessment orders. The petitioner relied on a circular of 2017, implying it was relevant to the disposal process. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, was present and heard. No specific arguments or contentions from the revenue are recorded in the judgment regarding the disposal of the appeals or the applicability of the circular.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 30TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4809 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER/S: PALLURUTHY MANDALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 65 PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI-682006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), INCOME TAX OFFICE, L.G.TOWERS, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM-682005. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE TOWER, KOCHI-682018. R1-2 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4809 OF 2020(A) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P3, P6 and P9 appeals preferred before the second respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1, P4 and P7. 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 Exts.P3, P6 and P9 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 sab JUDGE

WP(C).No.4809 OF 2020(A) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2011-12 DATED 20.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 20.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2012-13 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.04.2015. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 28.12.2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.24,21,38,090/-U/S 156 DATED 28.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2015-16 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.2018. EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,39,45,8603/-U/S 156 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.01.2020. EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 13.02.2019 FOR AY 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →