Thiruvilwamala Service Co operative Bank Limited. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the National Faceless Appeal Centre (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) to take up the petitioner's pending appeal for consideration at an early date and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, subject to the petitioner's co-operation. The Court also directed that recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Exhibit P1) shall stand stayed until the disposal of the appeal. The Court did not explicitly quash the assessment order or decide the merits of the appeal, but rather facilitated its timely adjudication. The operative direction was to expedite the appellate process and stay recovery.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Thiruvilwamala Service Co Operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was challenging an assessment order (Exhibit P1) dated December 12, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Thrissur (the third respondent). The petitioner had filed an appeal (Exhibit P3) against this assessment order in 2018 before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), the second respondent. However, the appeal remained undecided, and the petitioner was facing recovery proceedings based on the assessment order. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order, a direction to consider the appeal on its merits, and a stay on coercive recovery proceedings until the appeal was disposed of.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should quash the assessment order dated December 12, 2017, issued by the Income Tax Officer (Exhibit P1)? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the National Faceless Appeal Centre to consider the petitioner's appeal (Exhibit P3) on its merits, taking into account the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, and the Kerala High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank? (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether coercive proceedings against the petitioner should be restrained pursuant to the assessment order until the appeal is disposed of? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that their appeal against the assessment order was pending and undecided. They were facing recovery proceedings, and sought a direction for expeditious disposal of their appeal on merits, relying on specific Supreme Court and High Court judgments. They also sought a stay on coercive recovery measures. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that the appeal would be taken up for consideration expeditiously.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: 1) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 order issued by the third respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first and second respondents to consider Exhibit P3 appeal submitted by the petitioner against Exhibit P1 assessment order on merit taking note of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another – 2021 (1) KHC 303 SC = 431 ITR 1 and also the dictum laid down in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank [(2022) 442 ITR 141 (Ker.) and fresh orders in the matter. 3) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from taking coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuance to Exhibit P1 order till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority.
The petitioner has filed Exhibit P3 appeal against Exhibit P1 : 3 : assessment order dated 12.12.2017 before the second respondent in the year 2018. However, the said appeal is now pending before the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the appeal has not been decided by the second respondent, the petitioner is facing recovery proceedings in pursuance to Exhibit P1 assessment order.
Sri. Joseph John, the learned Standing Counsel, submits that Exhibit P3 appeal shall be taken up for consideration expeditiously.
Considering the said submission, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take up the appeal for consideration at an early date and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, subject to the co-operation of the petitioner. Till then, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P1 assessment order shall stand stayed. Writ petition stands finally disposed of. DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDGE.
Rv : 4 :
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
