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

WP(C)/4233/2020HC KeralaKLHC01011752202014 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent) to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision must be made after providing the petitioner with 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 appeal should be decided without insisting 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. No specific issue was left undecided; the court granted the primary relief sought by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Venpakal 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) (third respondent). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner was represented by its Secretary, and the respondents were the Income Tax Officer, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), all based in Thiruvananthapuram. The case was heard on February 14, 2020.

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 petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the timely disposal of its appeal. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments beyond this request. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue might have been seeking adherence to certain procedural requirements, such as the payment of 20% of the tax demanded.

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 FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4233 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: VENPAKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.T-155, VENPAKAL PO, ARALUMMOODU, TRIVANDRUM - 695 123 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SINI V.G. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, FIRST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4233 OF 2020(D) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the third 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 third 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.4233 OF 2020(D) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19-12-2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P4OF THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 6-2- 2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P5OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-10- 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.28170 OF 2019 IN SIMILAR CASE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →