MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 984, vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP(C)/3838/2020HC KeralaKLHC01010611202011 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to take a decision on the appeal (Ext.P3) in accordance with law. The court mandated that an opportunity of hearing be afforded to the petitioner. Crucially, the decision on the appeal was to be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court also directed that the payment of 20% of the tax demanded should not be insisted upon, referencing a circular from 2017. Furthermore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order were to be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Marayamuttom 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.P3) pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (third respondent). The appeal was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P2). The petitioner sought a direction to decide the appeal within a specified period and without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per a circular issued in 2017. The revenue was represented by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Income Tax Officer. The High Court heard both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal within a stipulated time frame? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to decide the appeal without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded, in light of a 2017 circular? (Question of procedure and interpretation of circular) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the timely disposal of its appeal and for the appeal to be decided without the pre-condition of paying 20% of the tax demanded, citing a relevant circular. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the court heard both sides.

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.3838 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER/S: MARAYAMUTTOM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 984, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O.NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 131,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ANURADHA R. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (2) AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. OTHER PRESENT: SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM 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.3838 OF 2020(D) 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the third respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order Ext.P2. 2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 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.3838 OF 2020(D) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 30.11.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER INCOME TAX ACT,1961. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO AACAT5397C/2014-15 DATED 27.12.2019 ISSUED FRO THE YEAR 2014-15 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.1.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P4OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO PAN AACAT 5397C/2014-15 DATD 27.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 14.1.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT P3 APPEAL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →