"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7920 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER/S: THE NATTIKA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NATTIKA.P.O., THRISSUR-680 566, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2,GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR-680 101 OTHER PRESENT: SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.7920 of 2020 2 Dated this the 13th day of March, 2020 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P7 assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 and 2017-2018 respectively. The petitioner preferred Exts.P4 and P9 appeals along with Exts.P6 and P11 stay petitions. Exts.P5 and P10 notices demanding remittance of 20% of the tax due, which is in dispute before the respondents. The prayer in the writ petition is for expeditious consideration of either the appeals or the stay petitions and to stay the recovery proceedings including the insistence to pay 20% of the amount as demanded under Exts.P5 and P10. 2. The issue regarding imposition of the condition of remittance of 20% of the tax demanded was considered and decided by the Division Bench W.P.(C) No.7920 of 2020 3 of this Court and as per the judgment in W.A.No. 1529 of 2019 and connected cases. After taking note of the peculiar aspects involved and the decision of the Full Bench in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], the Division Bench held the insistence for payment of 20% of the tax assessed, while the appeal against the assessment order is pending, to be bad. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department also. In the light of the Division Bench decision, the demand for remittance of 20% of the tax assessed pending consideration of the appeals, is illegal. The writ petition is therefore disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P9 appeals filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. In the meanwhile, W.P.(C) No.7920 of 2020 4 further proceedings for recovery based on Exts.P1 and P7 assessment orders, including the demand under Exts.P5 and P10, shall be kept in abeyance. sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/13.03.2020 W.P.(C) No.7920 of 2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 5.11.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER SHEET EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 5.11.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 9.12.2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2020 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24.1.2020 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7.11.2019 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7.11.2019 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.11.2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2020 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24.1.2020 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.7.2019 IN W.A.NO.1536 OF 2019 "