THIRUVAMBADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, following its own Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287], directed the first appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, without undue delay. The Court also ordered that, in the interest of justice, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance until the final disposal of the appeal. The ratio is that statutory appeals should be disposed of expeditiously, and coercive recovery should be stayed pending such disposal, especially when relying on established High Court precedents.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Thiruvambady Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) before the High Court of Kerala seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider their appeal on merits and to restrain respondents from initiating coercive proceedings until the appeal is decided. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer. The petition highlights a procedural history where the petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the first appellate authority. The core of the petition revolves around the pendency of this appeal and the threat of coercive recovery actions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the first appellate authority should be directed to consider the petitioner's appeal on its merits? (Question of law and procedure) 2. Whether coercive proceedings for recovery of impugned tax should be restrained until the appeal is decided? (Question of law and procedure) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that their appeal (Ext.P2) should be considered on its merits by the first respondent. They also contend that coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed tax should be stayed until a final decision is rendered in their appeal. The petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue (respondents).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The main prayer in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: “1) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal on merit and also restraining the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings against the petitioner society till orders are passed in Ext.P2 appeal on merit.”
Heard Sri. O.D. Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents.
In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has taken the view that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded, as a condition for grant of stay, need not be insisted in cases as in the instant one and that the Division Bench, for reasons stated therein, has ordered that it is for the appellate authority to take a decision on the statutory appeal at the earliest and that until the final decision is rendered by the appellate authority in the statutory appeal, coercive steps for recovery and collection of the impugned tax shall be kept in abeyance in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The Division Bench in the abovesaid judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has also dealt with the reasons for taking such a view for making such an interim arrangement pending disposal of the main appeal by the statutory appellate authority concerned. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019 has been followed by this Court in a series of other cases as in the judgment dated 10.1.2020 in W.P.(C).No.523/2020. Accordingly, following the line of directions and orders already passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No. 1529/2019 as well as various other judgments rendered by this Court, following the said directions and orders of the Division Bench in the matter of the interim arrangement till the disposal of the main statutory appeal, etc., following orders and directions are issued: It is ordered that the 1st appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P-2 appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay and within a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by the said appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P-2 appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the abovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE acd
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
