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

WP(C)/3898/2020HC KeralaKLHC01011026202012 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with 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 decision should be taken without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should dispose of pending appeals expeditiously, and recovery can be stayed pending such disposal, especially when a circular permits waiver of pre-deposit under certain circumstances.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kunnamthanam 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) and an interim application (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the third respondent). These were filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a directive for the Commissioner to decide the appeal. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Thiruvalla Range (the second respondent), and the appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (the third respondent). The Central Board of Direct Taxes (the first respondent) was also a party.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal and interim application filed by the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal and interim application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded in the judgment for the petitioner's prayer for direction. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the matter was heard on both sides, implying the revenue was represented. However, no specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue were detailed in the 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3898 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: KUNNAMTHANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.A-151,VIII/386,KUNNAMTHANAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY-689 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMITHA GOPINATH BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI 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 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, THIRUVALLA RANGE, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA-689 101 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM-686 001 OTHER PRESENT: SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3898 OF 2020(J) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 interim application

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.3898 OF 2020(J) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. AACAK2481J DATED 24-12-2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1AOF RECTIFICATION ORDER NO. AACAK2481J DATED 14.01.2020 AGAINST EXT P1 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 28.01.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT P2 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →