THE RAMAPURAM REGIONAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED. NO. 4111, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

WP(C)/3788/2020HC KeralaKLHC01010641202011 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with law. The court stipulated that an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the petitioner. The decision is to be made within 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, as per a circular of 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Ramapuram Regional Service Co Operative Bank Limited, 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) (first respondent). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Kottayam (second respondent). The petitioner sought a direction for the timely 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 assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal pending before the first respondent. The assessee relied on a circular issued in 2017 regarding the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue would be bound by the outcome of the appeal and the court's directives.

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 TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3788 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER/S: THE RAMAPURAM REGIONAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED. NO. 4111, RAMAPURAM, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.3, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3788 OF 2020(W) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the first 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 first 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.3788 OF 2020(W) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18 DATED 5/02/2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 7/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEMANDING THE DISPUTED TAX.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →