VALAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K 91, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/4965/2020HC KeralaKLHC01013495202020 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

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 with an opportunity of being heard. The disposal is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court directed that the payment of 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings stemming from the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is rendered on the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should dispose of appeals expeditiously and that interim directions regarding tax payment and recovery can be granted pending appeal disposal, considering relevant circulars.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Valavoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of its appeal (Ext.P3) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent). The appeal was against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The dispute pertains to the assessment order and the pending appeal before the CIT(A). The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition to expedite its disposal.

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 approached the High Court seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner relied on a circular of 2017 regarding the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, implying the revenue was represented and had an opportunity to present its case, though specific arguments are not detailed.

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 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.4965 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER/S: VALAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K 91, VALAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC SMT.DONA AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM RANGE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4965 OF 2020(U) 2

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.4965 OF 2020(U) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 29/12/2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 30/01/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 04/02/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED31/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/02/2020 IN WPC NO.3838/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →