CA COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5503/2026HC DelhiDLHC01017185202623 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it could not issue a sweeping direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeals without quantifiable data regarding the pendency of appeals before the institution. The Court stated that the petitioner is free to move an application before the Appellate Authority, which shall consider the same in accordance with the law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's appeals or the alleged prioritization issue. The operative direction is that the petitioner can approach the Appellate Authority with an application, which will be considered as per law. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the core request for a sweeping direction was not granted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, CA Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Appellate Authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide its pending appeals. These appeals relate to Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17 and have been pending since January 21, 2020. The petitioner's counsel argued that the appeals were not being prioritized because the entire or substantial amount in dispute had been deposited or recovered, and priority was generally given to appeals with interim orders. The respondents are the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court can issue a sweeping direction to the Appellate Authority to decide pending appeals, considering the petitioner's submission that appeals with deposited/recovered amounts are not being prioritized. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their appeals are not being taken up for consideration because the entire/substantial amount has been deposited or recovered, and priority is generally given to appeals where interim orders have been passed. The petitioner seeks a direction for their appeals to be decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the prioritization of appeals or the merits of the petitioner's case. However, the court's response implies a need for quantifiable data on pendency before issuing directions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~152 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5503/2026, CM APPL. 26987/2026 & CM APPL. 26988/2026 CA COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Adv. versus NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy Jain and Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs and Mr. Udit Dad, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

23.04.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the Appellate Authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide petitioner’s appeals, which are pending since 21.01.2020 for Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the entire/substantial amount has been deposited or recovered by the respondents, petitioner’s appeals are not being taken up for consideration as the priority is generally given to those appeals, in which interim order has been passed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2026 at 13:14:33

that no sweeping direction can be issued to the Appellate Authority, unless quantifiable data in relation to pendency of appeals before the institutions is placed before us. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner is free to move an application before the Appellate Authority, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 5. Petition stands disposed of along with all pending applications. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 23, 2026/cd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2026 at 13:14:33

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →