MEKKADAMPU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/4629/2020HC KeralaKLHC01012521202018 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 must be made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The disposal should be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that the Commissioner should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded as a pre-condition for deciding the appeal, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mekkadampu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of their appeal (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the second respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (the first respondent). The petitioner sought a disposal of the appeal without insistence on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. The Court heard both parties and issued directions regarding the disposal of the appeal and the stay of recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner? 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the appeal without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, in light of a 2017 circular? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their appeal and argued that the disposal should not be made conditional on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, citing a circular from 2017. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

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 TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 29TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4629 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: MEKKADAMPU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.4073, MEKKADAMPU.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-682316, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA-685584. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL REVENUE TOWER,KOCHI-682002. BY SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4629 OF 2020(C) 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, JUDGE Skk//22022020

WP(C).No.4629 OF 2020(C) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017- 18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2020. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2010 FOR 20% OF TAX. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →