ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

WP(C)/3794/2020HC KeralaKLHC01010562202011 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 pending appeal (Ext.P2) in accordance with the law. This decision was to be made after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court specified that the disposal should occur within three months from the date of receiving 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 initiated pursuant to the assessment order were ordered to be kept in abeyance until a decision was reached 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, Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, 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) (first respondent). This appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (second respondent). The petitioner sought a timely decision on their appeal. The court heard both parties and considered the procedural aspects of the appeal.

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 petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeal against the assessment order. They relied on a circular of 2017 concerning the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. The petitioner sought to have recovery proceedings stayed until a decision was taken on the appeal. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the court heard the learned counsel on both sides, implying the revenue was represented and heard. However, specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are not detailed in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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.3794 OF 2020(Y) PETITIONER/S: ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, 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 - 680 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 014. OTHER PRESENT: (SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX 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.3794 OF 2020(Y) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 11th day of February 2020 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.3794 OF 2020(Y) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23/01/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PROCEEDING DATED 06/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →