M/S. MADAI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/5012/2020HC KeralaKLHC01013505202020 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeals (Exts.P2, P4, and P6) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing, within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that the decision should be made without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings stemming from the assessment orders are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is reached on the appeals. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the appeals themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of their disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Madai Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought a direction for the disposal of appeals (Exts.P2, P4, and P6) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the third respondent. These appeals were against assessment orders (Exts.P1, P3, and P5). The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kannur; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode; and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode. The writ petition was filed on February 20, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeals filed by the petitioner? The petitioner argued for a direction to dispose of their appeals. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific grounds of appeal or the assessment years involved, nor does it detail the arguments presented by either side beyond the petitioner's request for a disposal order.

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.5012 OF 2020(B) PETITIONER/S: M/S. MADAI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VENGARA P.O., KANNUR-670305, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AJITH KUMAR K. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KONNOTHUMCHAL, CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR-670006. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. 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.5012 OF 2020(B) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Exts.P2, P4 and P6 appeals preferred before the third respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1, P3 and P5. 2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on Exts.P2, P4 and P6 appeals 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 orders shall be kept in abeyance. AMIT RAWAL sab JUDGE

WP(C).No.5012 OF 2020(B) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20/01/2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19/12/2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT OF THE AY 2015-16. EXHIBIT P4OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16. EXHIBIT P5OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13/12/2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P6OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P7OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 21/02/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P8OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 21/02/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16. EXHIBIT P9OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 11/02/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2017-18. EXHIBIT P10OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/12/2019 IN WPC NO.27295/2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN SIMILAR MATTER IN THE CASE OF PACS.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →