VELINELLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2873 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,

WP(C)/4712/2020HC KeralaKLHC01013055202019 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) (3rd respondent) to decide the pending appeal (Ext.P2) 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 ordered that the recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) should be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The court also specified that the Commissioner should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular of 2017, while disposing of the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should dispose of pending appeals expeditiously and that recovery proceedings can be stayed pending such disposal, with specific directions on pre-deposit requirements.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Velineelloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of its appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a speedy resolution of its appeal. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer (2nd respondent), and the appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent), with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (1st respondent) being a party in the writ petition. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment.

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 expeditious disposal of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the assessee in this regard. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions or arguments made by the revenue authorities (respondents 1, 2, and 3) in opposition to the petitioner's prayer for a direction to dispose of the appeal. The court heard both sides, implying the revenue was represented, but their specific arguments are not detailed.

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.4712 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER: VELINELLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2873 P.O.KARINGANNOOR, KOLLAM-691 516, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.K.RAMACHANDRAN. BY ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM- 691 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM 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.4712 OF 2020(L) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the 3rd 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 3rd 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 nak JUDGE

WP(C).No.4712 OF 2020(L) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AAAAT1142R/2017-18 DATED 22.11.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL DATED 21.12.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.AAAAT1142R/2017-18 DATED 22.11.2019 FOR THE HEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 14.02.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P2 APPEAL. //// P.A TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →