THE POTTASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, 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.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision must be made after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The disposal is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that the appeal should be decided without insisting 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 taken on the appeal. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself but rather directed its timely adjudication.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Pottassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of this pending appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The dispute concerns tax demanded pursuant to the assessment order. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and the subsequent writ petition seeking its expeditious 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 assessee, The Pottassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., seeks a direction from the High Court for the expeditious disposal of its appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee relies on a circular of 2017 which, according to the judgment, allows for the appeal to be considered without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are recorded in the judgment.
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.P2 appeal preferred before the 2nd 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 2nd 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 nak JUDGE
WP(C).No.4662 OF 2020(G) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 24.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 7.1.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2020. //// P.A TO JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
