MANTHARATHUR CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD. P-1226 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/4458/2020HC KeralaKLHC01012156202017 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the court ordered that the Commissioner should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular issued in 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mantharaathur Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal (Ext.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a directive for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The respondents included the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Income Tax Officer, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment year is not specified in the judgment.

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 for the disposal of its appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner did not explicitly state arguments regarding the merits of the appeal or the grounds for delay, but rather focused on the need for a decision. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any specific arguments against the direction for disposal of the appeal. The judgment indicates that the court heard both sides, implying the revenue was represented and had an opportunity to present its case, but no specific arguments are recorded.

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.4458 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER/S: MANTHARATHUR CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD. F-1226 BANK ROAD, PATHIYARAKKARA P.O.VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 105,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VALSAKUMAR T.K. BY ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (2), AAYAKKA BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MANNANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 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.4458 OF 2020(F) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the third 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 third 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.4458 OF 2020(F) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE RETURN OF INCOME DATED 7.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 IN PAN AAAAT8843R EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO AAAAT884 RDATED 21.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL DATED 4.1.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P4OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO PAN AAAA T8843/2017-18 DATED 21.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 7.2.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT P3 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →