CHERTHALA CO-OPERATIVE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
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 is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The disposal must be within a period of 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, 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 High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its timely disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Cherthala Co-operative and Rural Development Bank Ltd, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of its appeal (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the second respondent). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 and TPS, Alappuzha (the first respondent). The petitioner sought a timely decision on their appeal. The High Court heard both parties and issued directions regarding the disposal of the appeal.
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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner bank sought a direction from the High Court for the expeditious disposal of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the provided text for the assessee's argument. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific contentions raised by the revenue before the High Court. However, the court's direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal implies that the revenue did not oppose the prayer for disposal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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 sab JUDGE
WP(C).No.3933 OF 2020(N) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2NDRESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2020 EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.02.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
