PARIYARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 593, 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 within the prescribed time. The Court found that procedural fairness requires the revenue authorities to wait before taking further steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, 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 assessment order or substantive tax issue was decided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Pariyaram Service Co-operative Bank Limited, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner also filed a stay petition along with its appeal. The grievance ventilated in this writ petition is that the revenue authorities are taking coercive steps against the petitioner before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court to prevent such coercive actions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue authorities should defer coercive steps until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of procedure and fairness) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps are being taken prematurely, before the appellate authority has had an opportunity to consider the stay petition. They relied on the principle of procedural fairness, which dictates that such actions should be postponed until the appeal and stay are adjudicated. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. It only notes the appearance of the learned Government Pleader.
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. 199 of 2019 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 →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
