THE THADUKKASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment in WP(C) No. 11750/2019. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was set aside to the extent it insisted upon the payment of 20% of the balance demand for granting a stay pending the disposal of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal itself after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides, at the earliest. The collection and recovery of the disputed demand were to be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal. The principle established is that the insistence on a pre-deposit of a substantial portion of the demand as a condition for stay, without proper consideration of the appeal on merits, is not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The appellant, The Thadukkassery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ appeal before the High Court of Kerala challenging a judgment in a writ petition. The appeal concerns an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding a demand raised by the Income Tax Officer. The procedural history indicates that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) insisted on the payment of 20% of the balance demand for granting a stay pending the disposal of the appeal. The High Court had previously disposed of a batch of identical writ appeals on July 19, 2019, in WA No. 1639/2019 and connected cases. The present appeal is stated to have identical circumstances.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in insisting on the payment of 20% of the balance demand for granting a stay pending the disposal of the appeal. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued against the requirement of paying 20% of the balance demand as a condition for stay, as evidenced by their challenge to the order. The judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments or precedents cited by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in this appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J A batch of identical writ appeals were disposed of by this Court through the judgment in W.A No. 1639/2019 and connected cases, dated 19.07.2019. The circumstances prevailing are identical in nature. Hence, by following the said judgment, we are inclined to allow the above writ appeal.
Therefore, the above writ appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment in WP(C) No. 11750/2019 is hereby set aside. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur in I.T.A No. 311/18-19 is hereby set aside to the extent it insisted upon payment of 20% of the balance demand for granting stay, pending disposal of the appeal. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in the appeal itself after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides, at the earliest. Collection and recovery of the disputed demand shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal.
Sd/-C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Sd/-R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE. lsn
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
