THE VADAVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The provided text is an excerpt from a High Court of Kerala judgment and does not contain the findings or decisions of an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Therefore, it is not possible to state what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning, or the ratio decidendi. No operative directions or undecided issues can be identified from this text.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Vadavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5, Palakkad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.
What were the issues?
The provided text does not contain the specific questions the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it record the arguments presented by the assessee (The Vadavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.) or the revenue (Income Tax Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Therefore, no issues or contentions can be identified from this judgment excerpt.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 series applications for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition
WPC 6858/18 directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 series applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done untrammelled by the orders, if any, passed by the competent authorities under the Act in exercise of their powers under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 1/3 // PS to Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ramshrayashil Constructions PVT.LTD vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of INDIAJharkhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Kiea Corporate Business Solutions vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Vrajman Enterprises vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 2 Nov 2026
- Nimmakayala Padmavathi vs. The Union Of INDIAAndhra Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
- Som Nath Nagar Mal Th Partner Sanjay Mahajan vs. Union Of INDIA Th Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 2 Nov 2026