THE KALLADIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/3687/2020HC KeralaKLHC01010290202011 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 the law. This decision is to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of 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 pursuant to the assessment order are to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather the procedural aspect of its disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kalladikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of this pending appeal. The appeal was filed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Palakkad. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer. The procedural history involves the filing of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 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 assessee. Assessee's contention: The assessee seeks a direction for the timely disposal of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee relies on a circular of 2017 which presumably allows for certain conditions to be met before insisting on 20% of the tax demanded. The assessee implicitly argues for a stay on recovery proceedings until the appeal is decided. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for both sides were heard, but it does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments. However, the court's direction to dispose of the appeal without insisting on 20% of the tax demanded suggests the revenue might have been insisting on this condition.

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 TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3687 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER/S: THE KALLADIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P 7489, KALLADIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BINOY JOSEPH, AGED 44, S/O. JOSEPH P.U. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 021 OTHER PRESENT: SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3687 OF 2020(I) 2

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.3687 OF 2020(I) 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →