VENJARAMOOD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2419 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The provided text is an excerpt from the cause list of the High Court of Kerala, indicating that the writ petition was listed for admission. It does not contain the judgment of the High Court itself, nor any findings, reasoning, or operative directions. Therefore, what the Tribunal (in this case, the High Court acting as a writ court) decided, the reasoning that led to it, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions are not available in this excerpt. No issue was expressly left undecided as no decision has been rendered in the provided text.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Venjaramoodu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), and the subsequent order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history that led to this writ petition is also not elaborated upon, beyond the fact that an appeal was made to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the outcome of that appeal is implicitly being challenged or reviewed. The amount in dispute is not stated.
What were the issues?
The primary issue before the High Court appears to be the legality or correctness of the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the petitioner. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, suggesting a challenge on grounds of violation of statutory provisions, principles of natural justice, or jurisdictional error. The specific questions of law or mixed law and fact that the Tribunal had to decide are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The contentions of the petitioner and the revenue are also not detailed. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, circulars, or precedents are mentioned as being relied upon by either party in the provided 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.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P6 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P5 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P6 application for stay. It is pointed out that in the light of Ext.P7 judgment rendered by this Court in a matter challenging the order passed in a stay petition preferred in an identical appeal, the petitioner is entitled to an absolute stay in the matter. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC 6915 /18 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 second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done having regard to Ext.P7 judgment rendered by this Court. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P6 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 1/3 // PS to Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Siddharth Barai (Prop- Siddharth Design Studio) vs. The Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, Balangir RangeOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Shashibhusan Moharana vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, DhenkanalOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sanjeevini Health Care vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi And AssociatesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Trilok Chandra vs. State Tax OfficerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Basant Ballabh Punetha vs. State Of UttarakhandUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026