THE ANCHALUMOODU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.613 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The decision is to be taken in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court directed that the appellate authority should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular of 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order were to be kept in abeyance until a decision was 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 Anchalmoodu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of its appeal. The appeal was filed against an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) against the assessment order (Ext.P1). The writ petition was filed because the appeal had not been decided by the appellate authority.
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 from the High Court for the expeditious disposal of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee 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, but it does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments or reliance on any particular authorities or precedents.
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.4873 OF 2020(H) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 04.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 04.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ONLINE APPEAL DATED 04.12.2019 ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P3 APPEAL DATED 24.01.2020. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN WA NO.1639 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2019 IN WPC NO.31787 OF 2019.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
