INCHAKUNDU 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 of filing an appeal and a stay petition in a timely manner. The Court found that procedural fairness requires the 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 second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) considers the stay petition. The Court also expressed hope that the second respondent would dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, as the Court was addressing the procedural aspect of coercive steps.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Inchakundu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The bank filed an appeal against an assessment order (Ext.P1) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who is the second respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed a stay petition. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, alleging that the revenue authorities were taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could decide on the stay petition. The writ petition was filed on November 23, 2018.
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). The petitioner contended that it had exercised its statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay petition on time. It argued that procedural fairness dictates that coercive steps should be withheld until the stay petition is adjudicated. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, as an assessee under the Income Tax Act, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order before the second respondent. The petitioner, in the appeal, filed a stay petition, too. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition in the appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears thatit 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.
W.P.(C) No. 38005/2018 -3- Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the second respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the second respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
