VENGARA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/4115/2020HC KeralaKLHC01011471202013 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take a decision on Exts.P9 and P10 (rectification petitions) in accordance with law. The Court mandated that this decision be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Commissioner was given a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment to pass the order. Furthermore, the Court directed that recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the rectification petitions. The principle established is that a writ court can direct a statutory authority to consider and decide pending applications within a stipulated time, ensuring due process and preventing undue hardship through recovery actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vengara Service Co Operative Rural Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on petitions for rectification of mistake. These rectification petitions were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition was filed on February 13, 2020. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The specific order or action under challenge is the non-consideration of the rectification petitions. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of rectification petitions and the subsequent writ petition seeking their disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the rectification petitions filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/mandamus) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank seeks a direction from the High Court for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and decide its pending rectification petitions. The petitioner relies on the general principle that statutory authorities should act in accordance with law and within a reasonable time. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard. No specific arguments or contentions are recorded for the revenue in this judgment.

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.4115 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER/S: VENGARA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LIMITED NO. F 1186, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HAMEED M, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLAKUTTY, VENGARA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KOCHI 676 304 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, TIRUR TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR 676 101 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM 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.4115 OF 2020(L) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to consider and pass orders on the petitions for rectification of mistake preferred before the second respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

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 Exts.P9 and P10 rectification petition 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. Till such time a decision is taken on the petitions, recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL sab JUDGE

WP(C).No.4115 OF 2020(L) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2008- 09 DATED 26-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS. 3,12,400/- DATED 26-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2013- 14 DATED 25-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS. 45,21,740/- DATED 25-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 08-04-2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE APEPAL FOR AY- 2013-14 DATED 08-04-2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR AY 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12-12-2019 EXHIBIT P8OF THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR AY 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02-12-2019 EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE PETITION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08-02- 2020 FOR AY 2008-09 EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE PETITION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08-02- 2020 FOR AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE LETTER OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07-02-2020 FOR AY 2008-09 EXHIBIT P12 AOF THE LETTER OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07-02-2020 FOR AY 2013-14

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →