THE MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without undue delay. The court further 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 orders are passed disposing of the appeal. This direction is based on the principles laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019, which was followed in subsequent cases, and the dictum of the Full Bench in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather the procedural aspect of its expeditious disposal and interim relief.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Mundur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to expeditiously pass orders on its appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner is challenging an assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel and the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. The dispute involves the tax demand arising from the assessment order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to pass orders on the petitioner's statutory appeal and stay petition expeditiously? (Question of procedure/mandamus). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of its appeal and stay petition. The petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and a Full Bench judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appeared. However, specific arguments made by the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: (i) “To direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition expeditiously by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. (ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”
Heard Sri.Harisankar V Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, 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
WP(C).No.3006 OF 2020(A) 3 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 2nd respondent appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P2 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.P2 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 SKS
WP(C).No.3006 OF 2020(A) 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- 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
