THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receiving 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 reached on the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the court provided a clear directive for the appeal's disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Akatethara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to dispose of their appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner was represented by their Secretary, Subha Varma P. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Palakkad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. The case was heard on February 17, 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. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeal before the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, implying the revenue was also represented and heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.
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 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.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 sab JUDGE
WP(C).No.4366 OF 2020(U) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
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
