THE KAVIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, without delving into the merits of the controversy, directed the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) to take up the stay application (Ext.P6) filed in the appeal (Ext.P5) without undue delay. The court mandated that the 1st respondent should afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass orders on the stay application preferably within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the stay application, further coercive steps for the enforcement of the impugned assessment order (Ext.P2) were to be kept in abeyance. The court clarified that the 1st respondent may pass orders on the stay application in accordance with law. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment or the stay petition itself, other than directing its expeditious disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Kaviyoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee before the Income Tax Officer (2nd respondent). The Assessing Officer assessed a total income of Rs. 89,09,079/- and raised a demand of Rs. 35,50,244/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent) and also a petition for stay of recovery proceedings. The Income Tax Officer issued an order requiring the petitioner to remit 20% of the total demand to have the stay considered. As no order was passed on the complete stay petition and recovery proceedings were threatened, causing prejudice, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition (Civil) seeking to quash certain orders, to direct the respondents to consider the pending appeal and stay petitions, and to refrain from recovery proceedings until the stay petitions are decided.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's pending appeal (Ext.P5) and stay petitions (Exts.P6 and P8) within a stipulated time frame? (Question of procedure and administrative action). 2. Whether the respondents should be restrained from proceeding with recovery proceedings until the stay petitions are considered and appropriate orders are passed? (Question of procedural fairness and interim relief). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that their appeal and stay petitions were pending, and the conditional stay requiring 20% pre-deposit was causing serious prejudice. They sought a direction for the timely consideration of their applications and a stay on recovery until a decision was reached. Revenue's contentions: The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that it was for the petitioner to make the pre-deposit of 20% of the demand amount to secure a stay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: The petitioner is a primary agricultural credit society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the 2nd respondent. The assessing officer assessed a total income of Rs.89,09,079/- and arrived at a finding of aggregate income tax liability of Rs.35,50,244/- under various heads and issued a demand notice under Sec.156 of the Income Tax Act, demanding an amount of Rs.35,50,244/-. Aggrieved by the assessment made, an appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. The petitioner also moved a petition before the recovery officer to stay the recovery proceedings since the appeal is pending before him. Now the Income Tax Officer issued an order to remit 20% of the total demand raised and states that the stay of demand will be considered only on payment of 20% of the total demand amount. Since the stay granted is only a conditional stay, ..3.. the petitioner preferred a petition for complete stay of the recovery proceedings. No orders were passed on the stay petition. The appeal and stay against the assessment and demand notice are pending and if the amount is recovered serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner Bank. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: “ i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibits P2, P3 and P7; ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order ` or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to consider the Ext.P5 appeal and Exts.P6 and P8 stay petitions preferred by the petitioner within a time frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents not to proceed with any recovery proceedings till the stay petitions are considered and appropriate orders passed therein. iv. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the case.”
Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Government of India, appearing for the respondents.
Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, appearing for the respondents submits that it is for the petitioner to make pre-deposit of 20% of the ..4.. demand amount for securing stay, etc.
Without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, it is for the 1st respondent to take up the matter in Ext.P-6 stay application filed in Ext.P-5 appeal without much delay, and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will pass orders without much delay, preferably within a period of 4 to 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are passed on Ext.P-6 stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of impugned Ext.P-2 assessment order may be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the 1st respondent may pass orders on Ext.P-6 stay application in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG ..5..
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 156
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Sagarmal Mall, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 32, KolkataITA 195/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Bhavesh Rameshbhai Patel, Naroda vs Asst. Unit. Income Tax Dept. (Present Juri…ITA 321/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Prabha Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), KolkataITA 2543/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2013-2014
- Maheshwari Brothers, Mumbai vs ITO - 19(2)(2), MumbaiITA 4115/MUM/2026[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2008-09
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026