THE PARLI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/4313/2020HC KeralaKLHC01011859202017 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.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court directed that the disposal 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 principle established 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 based on circulars.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Parli Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of this pending appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition seeking its expeditious 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 petitioner? The petitioner contended that their appeal (Ext.P2) before the second respondent (CIT(A)) has not been disposed of and sought a direction for its expeditious disposal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly name any specific provision of the Income Tax Act that is the subject of dispute, but the context implies issues related to the assessment order and the appellate process.

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 MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4313 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER/S: THE PARLI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F-6808, PARLI, PALAKKAD - 678 612, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMASWAMY K., AGED 41, S/O. KRISHNAN. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 021. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4313 OF 2020(L) 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.4313 OF 2020(L) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →