KADALUNDI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F 1500 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay application (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay application. The principle is that appellate authorities should decide stay applications expeditiously, and recovery proceedings should be put on hold pending such decisions to avoid prejudice to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kadalundi Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The assessee is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the second respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Kozhikode. The assessee filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with an application for stay (Ext.P3). The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the first respondent in deciding the stay application. Proceedings for realization of the amounts demanded in the assessment order have already been initiated.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on the stay application filed by the assessee, given the ongoing recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that recovery proceedings have commenced based on the assessment order, and the delay in deciding the stay application is causing prejudice. They sought appropriate directions to resolve this. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are mentioned in the judgment.
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 second respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the first respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the first respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 application 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 assessment order. 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 directing the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 1/3
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mohd. Aqil Proprietor Of M/S Ma Garments vs. Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi And Anr.Delhi · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
