THE KODUVAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P 756, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3710/2020HC KeralaKLHC01010283202011 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. The court further directed that the disposal should occur within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court ordered that the appellate authority should not insist on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular issued in 2017. Until a decision is reached on the appeal, recovery proceedings initiated based on the assessment order (Ext.P1) are to be kept in abeyance. The court did not leave any issue undecided; it provided a clear directive for the appeal's resolution.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Koduvayur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the disposal of its appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner sought a speedy resolution of their appeal. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Palakkad (first respondent). The procedural history indicates that the appeal was pending before the appellate authority.

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? The petitioner contended that they have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and sought a direction for its expeditious disposal. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the disposal of the appeal itself, but the court's direction implies that the revenue would be bound by the outcome of the appeal. 2. Whether the condition of depositing 20% of the tax demanded should be insisted upon before disposing of the appeal, considering the circular of 2017? The petitioner sought to avoid the insistence on paying 20% of the tax demanded, referencing a circular from 2017. The revenue's stance on this specific point is not explicitly recorded, but the court's order addresses it.

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.3710 OF 2020(K) PETITIONER/S: THE KODUVAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P 756, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD-678 521, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE, SUJEESH.K.K., SECRETARY IN CHARGE, SUJEESH.K.K., AGED 33, S/O.KUTTUMANI.K. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, 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.3710 OF 2020(K) 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.3710 OF 2020(K) 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 →