TRADERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs. 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 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court further stipulated that the Commissioner should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular issued in 2017. Additionally, the court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The reasoning was to ensure a fair and timely adjudication of the appeal while providing interim relief to the assessee. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its disposal and the interim measures.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Traders Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to expedite the disposal of their appeal (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kottayam. The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Kottayam. The petitioner sought a decision on their appeal without the pre-condition of depositing 20% of the tax demanded, citing a circular from 2017. The court heard both the petitioner and the respondent revenue.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the petitioner? 2. Whether the recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the timely disposal of their appeal and argued that the condition of depositing 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon, referencing a circular from 2017. They also sought a stay on recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue's standard recovery procedures were being considered.
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, JUDGE Skk//22022020
WP(C).No.4642 OF 2020(E) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 30.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017- 18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.01.2020 EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.01.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
