THE MANICKAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is duty-bound to consider and dispose of the appeals and stay petitions filed by the petitioner without any delay. The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed appeals against the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2015-2016, along with stay petitions. The Court observed that the petitioner had also received a notice from the Assessing Officer regarding further proceedings, but this should not impede the appellate authority from considering the pending appeals and stay petitions. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeals and stay petitions filed by the petitioner expeditiously. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must act promptly on filed appeals and stay petitions, and the initiation of further proceedings by the Assessing Officer should not be a ground for delaying the disposal of appeals.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Manickal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is challenging assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2015-2016, passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2(3). The assessment orders were dated November 24, 2017, and December 18, 2017, respectively, along with demand notices. The petitioner filed online appeals against these orders on December 5, 2017, and December 27, 2017, respectively, and also filed stay petitions on February 10, 2018. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice dated February 9, 2018, from the ITO regarding further proceedings. The petitioner is before the High Court seeking directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the appeals and stay petitions expeditiously.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bound to consider and dispose of the appeals and stay petitions filed by the petitioner expeditiously, despite the pendency of further proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that they have filed appeals against the assessment orders and have also filed stay petitions. They contend that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should consider these appeals and stay petitions promptly. The petitioner relies on the principle that appeals and stay petitions should be disposed of without undue delay, citing previous judgments of the High Court (Exhibits P13 and P15) and appellate orders (Exhibit P14) which suggest timely disposal of such matters. Revenue's Contention: The revenue has not recorded any specific contention in the judgment regarding the expeditious disposal of the appeals and stay petitions. The revenue's representative appeared before the court.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6093 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MANICKAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1910, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIRAPPANCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695607. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 6093 of 2018 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.07.2013, ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), NEDUMANGAD. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 24.11.2017. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2017. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 18.12.2017. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL AGAINST EXT-P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH CHALAN DATED 05.12.2017. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL AGAINST EXT-P4 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH CHALAN DATED 27.12.2017. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. AADAM1119J/ITO/W-2(3)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 09.02.2018. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT-P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10.02.2018. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.02.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT-P9 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT-P4 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10.02.2018. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.02.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P11 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2017 IN WP(C) NO. 34252 OF 2017. EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN ITA NO. 9 & 21/TVM/CIT (A), TVM/2014-15 & 2015-16 DATED 17.11.2017. EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2018 IN WP(C) NO. 2297 OF 2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================ W.P.(C.) No. 6093 of 2018 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Co-operative Society and an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The self assessments made by the petitioner under the Act for the year 2011-'12 and 2015-'16 have been revised by the competent authority under Section 143(3) of the Act. Exts.P2 and P4 are the assessment orders passed in this connection. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4 orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P9 and P11 appeals before the appellate authority namely, the second respondent. Exts.P10 and P12 are the stay petitions preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P9 nd P11 appeals. The grievance voiced the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in taking up and disposing of Exts.P9 and P11
W.P.(C.) No.6093 of 2018 : 2 : appeals. The petitioner, therefore seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in the writ petition. 2. 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 Exts.P10 and P12 applications for stay. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed on Exts.P10 and P12 applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in the appeals referred to above, further proceedings for the realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P4 orders shall be deferred.
sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE SKS
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M / S. Mehta And Modi Realty Kowkur LLP vs. Prem Kumar SanghiTelangana · 13 Nov 2026
- Shri. Adbul Rahim vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 13 Nov 2026
- Sandhyarani Das vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Pitabas Jena,Pokharigaon, Cuttack vs. Supernitendent, Cuttack-Iii, Range, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Sudarshan Behera vs. Superintendent Angul Circle, AngulOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
