ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. F 1193 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

WP(C)/4161/2020HC KeralaKLHC01011218202013 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.P2) in accordance with 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 directed 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 pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The principle established is that appellate authorities should dispose of appeals expeditiously and that interim relief regarding recovery can be granted pending appeal disposal, subject to specific conditions like not insisting on pre-deposit as per circulars.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Palakkad. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of this pending appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the first respondent and the subsequent writ petition seeking its expeditious disposal.

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 seeks a direction for the timely disposal of their appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities are recorded for the petitioner's stance on the disposal of the appeal itself, beyond the inherent right to have an appeal heard. Revenue's contention: The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment indicates that the learned counsel on both sides were heard, implying the revenue was represented, but their specific arguments are not detailed.

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 THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.4161 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER/S: ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. F 1193 ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678014. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4161 OF 2020(U) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal preferred before the first 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 first 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.4161 OF 2020(U) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.01.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →