KALLAMKUNNU 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 their statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition in a timely manner. The Court recognized that procedural fairness requires the revenue authorities to wait before taking further coercive steps until the appellate authority has decided on the stay petition. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing 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 issue regarding the merits of the assessment or the stay application itself was decided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kallamkunnu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with their appeal. The grievance raised in this writ petition was that the revenue authorities were initiating coercive steps for recovery of tax before the appellate authority had an opportunity to decide on the stay petition. The petitioner sought intervention to prevent such coercive actions pending the disposal of their stay application.
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 procedural fairness and administrative propriety). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps were being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority could adjudicate on their stay petition. They contended that procedural fairness dictated that the revenue should await the appellate authority's decision on the stay application before proceeding with recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side. The learned Government Pleader appeared, but their arguments are not detailed in the judgment.
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 -3- W.P.(C). No. 41973 of 2018 respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- 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
