THE SHORANUR CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition. It directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest. The Court also directed that recovery proceedings and the collection of tax assessed should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the appeal. The Court's decision was based on the admission by the revenue's counsel that the facts of the case were substantially similar to those in W.A. No.1536 of 2019, and the Court decided to follow the precedent set by the Division Bench in that case, as well as a Full Bench decision reported in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. No specific issue was left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Shoranur Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition was directed against the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner sought a direction for the disposal of its statutory appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and for a stay of recovery proceedings. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.1536 of 2019, which had directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery during the pendency of appeals. The Standing Counsel for the respondents admitted that the facts of the present case were substantially similar to those in the cited writ appeal.
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 at the earliest, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether recovery proceedings and collection of tax assessed 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, and that the present case was factually similar. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents admitted that the facts of the case were substantially the same as those in W.A. No.1536 of 2019 and could be followed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
DATED 20.12.2019 FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION STATEMENT PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 12.1.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18 EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 18.2.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY-2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPLICATION U/S 220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 18.2.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026