NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/4747/2020HC KeralaKLHC01013087202019 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL2 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 an opportunity of hearing. 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 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 taken on the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the court provided a clear directive for the appeal's resolution.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nadakkal 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.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner sought a speedy resolution of the appeal. The court heard both parties and considered the submissions made.

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 sought a direction from the High Court to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the disposal of its appeal against the assessment order. The petitioner implicitly argued for a timely resolution of the appellate proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the revenue was represented, but their specific contentions regarding the delay or the merits of the appeal are not detailed in the provided text. The court's direction to dispose of the appeal without insisting on 20% of the tax demanded suggests a consideration of the petitioner's situation, possibly in light of a circular.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 30TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4747 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KALLUVATHUKKAL.P.O, KOLLAM-691578, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4,KOLLAM,AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOLLAM-691001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),TRIVANDRUM-695003. R1-2 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4747 OF 2020(P) 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →