ERUMAPETTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/4059/2020HC KeralaKLHC01006986202013 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the pending appeals (Exts.P3, P5, and P7) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Crucially, the court ordered that the disposal should be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, and importantly, without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular of 2017. Until a decision is reached on the appeals, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment orders are to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeals themselves, but rather on the procedural aspect of their timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Erumapetty Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of appeals and stay petitions filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). These appeals and stay petitions were against assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner sought a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide these matters expeditiously.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeals and stay petitions filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank sought a direction from the High Court to expedite the disposal of its appeals and stay petitions pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner relied on a circular of 2017, implying it should not be made to pay 20% of the tax demanded as a pre-condition for appeal disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, but it does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments against the petitioner's prayer. However, the court's direction implies the revenue did not object to the disposal of appeals or the condition regarding the 20% tax payment.

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 THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4059 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER/S: ERUMAPETTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.R. 206, P.O. KOTTAPPURAM, MANGAD, ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT/S: 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 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA REGION, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CENTRAL REVENUE, BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL, TRICHUR 680 001. 4 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, INCOME TAX, OFFICE CITY PLAZA, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, 680 101. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4059 OF 2020(F) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P3, P5 and P7 appeals and Exts.P10, P11 and P12 stay petitions preferred before the third respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P2, P4 and P6. 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 Exts.P3, P5 and P7 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.4059 OF 2020(F) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THEOF THE CLASSIFICATION CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN TERMS OF RULE 15 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER YEAR 2008-09 DAETD 01/01/2016. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL DATED 00/02/2016. EXHIBIT P4OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014 DATED 08/03/2016. EXHIBIT P5OF HE APPEAL DATED 07/04/2016. EXHIBIT P6OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015 DATED 19/12/2016. EXHIBIT P7OF THE APPEAL DATED 19/01/2017. EXHIBIT P8OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/03/2019. EXHIBIT P9OF THE ORDER DATED 28/3/2019. EXHIBIT P10OF THE APPEAL ALONG WITH STAY PETITION DATED 02/04/2019. EXHIBIT P11OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 02/04/2019. EXHIBIT P12OF THE APPEAL ALONG WITH STAY PETITION DATED 01/04/2019. EXHIBIT P13OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 25262/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 7/4/2017. EXHIBIT P14OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 10901 OF 2019 DATED 05/04/2019. EXHIBIT P15OF THE ORDER DATED 26/09/2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →