ELAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1878, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/4310/2020HC KeralaKLHC01011885202017 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Crucially, the Court ordered that the disposal should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, the Court directed that recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Elamkulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged Exts.P8 and P9, which were notices issued by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner also sought a direction for the disposal of an appeal (Ext.P3) filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). This appeal was against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The Kerala State Co-operative Bank (3rd respondent) was also listed as a party. The writ petition was filed in February 2020.

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. 2. Whether recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer should be kept in abeyance until the appeal is decided. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of their appeal and for a stay on recovery proceedings. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's specific arguments beyond this. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the context implies the revenue had initiated recovery proceedings based on an assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3)

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 MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4310 OF 2020(K) PETITIONER/S: ELAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1878, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O.KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 578. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 AND TPS, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM,PIN-691001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 3 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK), PARIPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 574, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4310 OF 2020(K) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P8 and P9 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 226(3) as also 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

WP(C).No.4310 OF 2020(K) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 21.11.2019 EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF TH INCOME TAX ACT DATED 21.11.2019 EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE ONLINE APPEAL ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 11.1.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT-P3 APPEAL DATED 24.1.2020 EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE NOTICE DATED 13.2.2020, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, OBTAINED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.7.2019 IN WA NO 1639 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2019 IN WPC NO 31787 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P8 AOF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11-02-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 226(3). EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 226(3). EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE REQUEST DATED 14.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →