THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/3343/2020HC KeralaKLHC01009444202007 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the 2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest. The Court also directed that recovery proceedings and the collection of tax assessed should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the appeal. This decision was made taking note of the Full Bench decision reported in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287] and the admitted similarity of facts to a previous Division Bench judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself but provided procedural relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kanhikulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought directions regarding its pending statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner relied on a previous Division Bench judgment dated 01.07.2019 in W.A No.1529 of 2019 and connected cases, which directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery during their pendency. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 and TPS, Palakkad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur, were the respondents. The Standing Counsel for the respondents admitted that the facts of the present case were substantially similar to those considered by the Division Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest? 2. Whether recovery proceedings and collection of assessed tax should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the statutory appeal? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that a Division Bench judgment in W.A No.1529 of 2019 and connected cases directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery during the pendency of appeals. The petitioner relied on this precedent to seek similar relief. Revenue's Contentions: The Standing Counsel for the respondents admitted that the facts of the case were substantially the same as those considered by the Division Bench in the cited judgment and agreed that the precedent could be followed. No specific arguments were recorded against the petitioner's contentions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.3343 OF 2020

W.A No.1529 of 2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3343 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F-1086, KANJIKULAM.P.O., PALAKKAD-678596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AJITHKUMAR, AGED 49, S/O.BHASKARA PANICKER BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680021 OTHER PRESENT: SC NAVNEETH N NATH FOR JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.3343 OF 2020(P) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 7

th day of February, 2020 Heard Sri. Harisankar V.Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Navaneeth N. Nath holding for Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

Petitioner refers to and relies on judgment dated 01.07.2019 in W.A No.1529 of 2019 and connected cases to contend that the Division Bench directed disposal of appeals and granted stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeals.

The learned Standing Counsel admits that the facts of the case are substantially same and similar to the facts noted by the Division Bench in Ext.P5, hence can be followed. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner herein at the earliest taking note of the Full Bench decision reported in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287] and to keep in abeyance recovery proceedings and WP(C).No.3343 OF 2020(P) 3 collection of tax assessed, pending disposal of such appeal. S.V.BHATTI Dxy JUDGE

WP(C).No.3343 OF 2020(P) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →