THE OTTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.976 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
This excerpt does not contain the High Court's decision or reasoning. It only records the appearance of the parties and the date of hearing for the writ petition. Therefore, no findings, ratio, or operative directions can be extracted from this text. The excerpt is silent on what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning behind it, or any specific relief granted or denied. No issues were expressly left undecided as the judgment itself is not provided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Ottoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 976, 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-2(3), and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in this excerpt. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition (civil) has come up for admission. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
What were the issues?
The primary issue before the High Court, as indicated by the filing of a writ petition, is likely to be the legality or correctness of the actions or orders passed by the income tax authorities concerning the petitioner. The specific questions of law or fact that the Tribunal had to decide are not detailed in this excerpt. However, based on the nature of the parties and the writ petition, the core issue would revolve around the tax liability or assessment proceedings against the petitioner. The arguments of the assessee and the revenue are not recorded in this portion of the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T
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.P7 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P8 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P7 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.P8 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.P2 order. The specific case of the petitioner is that in the light of Ext.P11 judgment rendered by this Court on identical facts, the petitioner is entitled to the stay sought for in the appeal. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this W.P.(c).No.6462 of 2018 : 2 : 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 second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the matter of complying with the direction aforesaid, the second respondent shall certainly advert to and consider Ext.P11 judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P8 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE rsr
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Radheshyam Bhoi vs. The Comnr. Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Dharmajit Mishra vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Tapan Kumar Sahu vs. The Comnr. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanjeet Kumar Bagh vs. The Comn. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Rakesh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
