KUZHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the petitioner had exercised its statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition in a timely manner. The Court recognized that procedural fairness dictates that revenue authorities should await the appellate authority's decision on the stay petition before initiating coercive recovery measures. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the 2nd respondent would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kuzhur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with its appeal. The grievance of the petitioner was that the revenue authorities were initiating coercive steps for recovery of tax before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition. This writ petition was filed to address this grievance.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue authorities should defer coercive steps for recovery of tax pending the disposal of a stay petition filed by the assessee before the appellate authority? (Question of procedure and fairness) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps were being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority had an opportunity to consider its stay petition. This action was seen as a denial of procedural fairness. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd
-3- W.P.(C). No. 42092 of 2018 respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE da
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- 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
