KALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.693 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, following a Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1529/2019 and subsequent similar cases, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeals (Exts. P3 and P9) without undue delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment orders impugned in the appeals shall be kept in abeyance until the final orders disposing of these appeals are passed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders themselves, but rather on the interim arrangement pending appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kallur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking to stay the operation of certain orders (Exhibits P5, P6, P10, and P12) for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2017-18, and to restrain recovery proceedings until the disposal of their appeals (Ext. P3 and P9) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner also sought a direction to consider their appeals on merit and to quash the demands until final orders. The Income Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax were the respondents.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the operation of assessment orders for AY 2012-13 and 2017-18 (Exhibits P5, P6, P10, P12) should be stayed pending the disposal of appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a stay of the impugned orders and recovery proceedings until their appeals are finally decided. They relied on the principle that coercive steps for recovery should be kept in abeyance pending statutory appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the stay of recovery or the merits of the appeals. The revenue was represented by a Standing Counsel.
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 stay the operation of exhibit P5, P6, P10 and P12 orders for Ay 2012-13 and 2017-18 and further recovery till the final disposal of the Ext. P3 and P9 appeals before the 2nd respondent within a time limit. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing to consider the Ext.P3 and P9 appeal on merit and also restrain the petitioner society till the final orders are passed in the pending appeals. (iii) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P5, P6, P10 and P12 demands till the final orders are passed in appeals. (iv) to stay all coercive proceedings of recovery till the appeals are disposed of in a time frame. (v) to grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Heard Sri.C.A.Jojo, 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 WP(C).No.3149 OF 2020(P) 3 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 2nd respondent appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Exts.P3 and P9 appeals 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 Exts.P3 and P9 appeals, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order
WP(C).No.3149 OF 2020(P) 4 impugned in the abovesaid appeals 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.3149 OF 2020(P) 5
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
