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

WP(C)/4860/2020HC KeralaKLHC01013139202020 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 the law. The decision must be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. This decision is to be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court specified that the Commissioner should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is reached on the appeal. The judgment does not record any specific finding on the merits of the appeal itself, as the primary focus was on directing the appellate authority to proceed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Attappadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Palakkad (first respondent). The petitioner sought a timely decision on their appeal. The Income Tax Department was represented by its standing counsel.

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 petitioner bank sought a direction from the High Court to expedite the disposal of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner did not explicitly mention any specific legal provisions or precedents in the provided text, but the prayer itself indicates a grievance regarding the delay in appeal processing. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by its standing counsel, was present and heard. No specific arguments or contentions from the revenue's side are recorded in the judgment regarding the delay or the merits of the appeal.

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.4860 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER/S: THE ATTAPPADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P-1197, AGALI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.M.SURESH BABU, AGED 55, S/O.LATE AANDY. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BAHVAN, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 021. 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.4860 OF 2020(F) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 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.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.4860 OF 2020(F) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/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 →