THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the appellate authority, 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 and within a reasonable time frame to be fixed by the appellate authority. Furthermore, in the interest of justice, the Court ordered that 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 precedent set by a Division Bench of the High Court in W.A.No. 1529/2019, which was followed in subsequent cases, including W.P.(C).No.523/2020. The principle is that insistence on payment of a portion of the demand as a condition for stay need not be insisted upon in such cases pending the disposal of the statutory appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Malampuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala 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 represented by its Secretary. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition was filed seeking interim relief and costs. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel and the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
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, as per the prayer in the writ petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of its appeal and stay petition. The petitioner relies 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 arguments made by the revenue on the issues raised by the petitioner. However, the revenue is represented by its 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 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.3015 OF 2020(B) 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.3015 OF 2020(B) 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
