THE PULLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.F.550, vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the appeal challenging the assessment order finally. Crucially, the Court ordered that this decision be made without insisting on the payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount. The Court also mandated that the disposal of the appeal should be completed within a period of six months from the date of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal. The Court did not explicitly decide whether the subject matter was indeed covered by the cited judgments, but rather granted relief based on the petitioner's submission and the revenue's concession to decide the appeal expeditiously.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Pullur Service Co-operative Bank, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order. The appeal against this assessment order was pending before the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The petitioner argued that the subject matter of their appeal was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd & Others Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Another' and a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in 'The Angadippuram Service Co-operative Bank Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Another'. These judgments, according to the petitioner, directed the disposal of appeals without insisting on the payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount. The revenue disputed that the matter was covered by the Mavilayi judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the subject matter of the petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd & Others Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Another and the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in The Angadippuram Service Co-operative Bank Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Another, which allegedly directs disposal of appeals without insisting on payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the subject matter of their appeal is covered by the aforementioned Supreme Court and High Court judgments, and therefore, the appeal should be disposed of without insisting on the payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount. They relied on the judgment in The Angadippuram Service Co-operative Bank. Revenue's Contention: The revenue disputed the fact that the subject matter of the appeal is covered by the judgment in the matter of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Heard both sides.
It is reported that the statutory appeal challenging the assessment order at the instance of the petitioner is pending consideration of the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of the appeal is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd & Others Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported in 2021 (1) KHC 303. He submits that in identical matter, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has directed disposal of the appeal, without insisting for payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount. He place reliance on judgment dated 01.07.2019 in writ appeals no. 1529, 1530, 1535 and 1536 of 2019 in the matter of the “The Angadippuram Service Co-operative Bank Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Another.”
The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents disputes the fact that the subject matter is covered by the judgment in the matter of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and submitted that purpose of the petition can be served if the statutory appeal is directed to be decided by the 3rd respondent in a time bound manner.
WP(C) NO. 13855 OF 2021 3 In this view of the matter, the petition is ordered by directing the 3rd respondent to decide the appeal challenging the assessment order finally without insisting for payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount within a period of six months from the date of this judgment. Till disposal of the appeal, the recovery in pursuant to the assessment order be kept in abeyance. A.M.BADAR JUDGE N WP(C) NO. 13855 OF 2021 4
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
