UZHAMALAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.298 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court observed that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) which was pending before the third respondent (the Appellate Authority). Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to the rectification order (Ext.P1) and demand notice (Ext.P3) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue regarding the assessing officer's failure to consider the Supreme Court judgment was implicitly addressed by directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal, which would include this ground.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Uzhamalakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had received a rectification order (Ext.P1) and demand notices (Ext.P3). An appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition were filed before the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which were pending. The petitioner apprehended recovery proceedings before the appeal was decided. The petitioner also argued that a Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer, despite the assessment order being passed after the Supreme Court's decision.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an appeal and stay petition are already pending before the appellate authority, and if so, under what circumstances? 2. Whether the assessing officer failed to consider the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] when passing the rectification order? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer, even though the assessment order was passed subsequent to this judgment. The petitioner also sought to prevent coercive recovery proceedings before the disposal of their pending appeal. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Against Ext.P1 rectification order, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition, which is pending consideration before the 3 rd respondent. Petitioner apprehends recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 and P3 demand notices may be effected, even before the appeal is considered. Hence, this writ petition.
While assailing the rectification order before the 3 rd respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer though the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 3 rd respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3 rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 rectification order and Ext.P3 demand notice. The writ petition is disposed of. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/24/05//2022
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Arun Aloysius Barnes vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 14 Oct 2026
