PANAYAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019 and other similar cases, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in such circumstances. The Court directed the 1st appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax) to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without undue delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the final disposal of the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself but focused on the interim arrangement pending disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Panayal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) before the High Court of Kerala. The petition sought to quash a proceeding (Ext.P3) issued by the Income Tax Officer (2nd respondent) and to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) to consider the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) on its merits. The petitioner also sought a restraint on coercive proceedings against them until the appeal was decided. The petition was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded as a condition for grant of stay should be applied in the present case, which is a question of law and fact concerning the procedural fairness in tax appeals. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned proceeding and have their appeal considered on merits, with a stay on coercive recovery actions. They rely on the dictum laid down by a Full Bench of the High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287] and a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1529/2019. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the context implies the revenue would be defending the assessment order and the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer.
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: “1) Call for records leading to Ext.P3 proceeding issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2) 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 →- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026