POOMANGALAM SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.R-712, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Poomangalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought directions for the disposal of its statutory appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and for a stay on recovery proceedings. The petitioner relied on a previous Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 and connected cases, which directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay on recovery during the pendency of the appeal. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), admitted that the facts of the present case were substantially similar to those in the cited Division Bench judgment.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest. The Court specifically noted that the Commissioner should take into account the Full Bench decision reported in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings and the collection of assessed tax should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the appeal. The Court's decision was based on the admission by the revenue that the facts were similar to a prior Division Bench judgment which granted similar relief.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, considering the facts are similar to a previous Division Bench judgment (W.A. No. 1536 of 2019)? (Question of procedure and administrative direction) 2. Whether recovery proceedings and collection of assessed tax should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the statutory appeal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 had directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. They argued that this precedent should be followed in their case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Standing Counsel, admitted that the facts of the case were substantially the same as those considered by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1536 of 2019 and agreed that the said judgment could be followed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Heard Sri. C.A. Jojo, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
Petitioner refers to and relies on judgment dated 01.07.2019 in W.A No.1536 of 2019 and connected cases to contend that the Division Bench directed disposal of appeal and granted stay of recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal.
The learned Standing Coun
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
