YEROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1816 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the third respondent, to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest. The Court emphasized that the disposal should take note of the Full Bench decision reported in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings and the collection of tax assessed should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the appeal. The reasoning is based on the admission by the Revenue that the facts are similar to a previous Division Bench judgment which granted similar directions. The ratio decidendi is that when facts are similar to a precedent and the Revenue concedes, similar relief should be granted, including a stay of recovery pending appeal disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Yeroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner sought directions regarding its pending statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment dated July 1, 2019, in W.A. No. 1529 of 2019 and connected cases, which directed the disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery during the pendency of appeals. The Revenue, represented by its Standing Counsel, admitted that the facts of the present case were substantially similar to those considered by the Division Bench in the cited writ appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest, taking note of the Full Bench decision in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural directions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relies on the judgment in W.A. No. 1529 of 2019 to contend that the Division Bench directed disposal of appeals and granted a stay of recovery pending appeal. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents admits that the facts of this case are substantially the same and similar to the facts noted by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1529/2019, and therefore, the said judgment can 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3424 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER/S: YEROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1816 YEROOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM 691 312, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SREEATHA K.V., BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.T.BIJU SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM 691 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYARKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
OTHER PRESENT: SC NAVANEETH N NATH FOR JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.3424 OF 2020(C) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 7
th day of February, 2020 Heard Sri. K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Navaneeth N. Nath holding Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
Petitioner refers to and relies on judgment dated 01.07.2019 in W.A No.1529 of 2019 and connected cases to contend that the Division Bench directed disposal of appeals and granted stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeals.
The learned Standing Counsel admits that the facts of this case are substantially same and similar to the facts noted by the Division Bench W.A.No.1529/2019, hence can be followed. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner herein at the earliest taking note of the Full Bench decision reported in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2)
WP(C).No.3424 OF 2020(C) 3 KHC 287] and to keep in abeyance recovery proceedings and collection of tax assessed, pending disposal of such appeal. S.V.BHATTI Dxy JUDGE
WP(C).No.3424 OF 2020(C) 4
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
