Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/28072/2019 Of The Paravur Service...

Wp(C)/28072/2019 Of The Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 23 Oct 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/28072/2019 Of The Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
23 Oct 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/28072/2019 Of The Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28072 OF 2019(H) PETITIONER: THE PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1801REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVUR.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691301 BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMARSRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON23.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P3 rectified order under the Income Tax Act for theassessment year 2017-2018, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appealtogether with Ext.P5 stay petition before the 3[rd] respondent. Exts.P6, P7and P8 are the notices issued to the petitioner indicating the coercivesteps taken by the respondents for recovery of the tax and penalty. It isthe case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition,recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner forrecovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P3 rectified order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case asalso the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition withthe following directions: 1. The 3[rd] respondent shall consider and passreasoned orders on Ext.P5 stay petition within aperiod of two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2. Coercive steps pursuant to Exts.P6, P7 and P8notices for recovery of amounts confirmed against mns the petitioner by Ext.P3 rectified order shall bekept in abeyance till such time as orders arepassed by the 3[rd] respondent as directed above andcommunicated to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writpetition together with a copy of this judgment,before the 3[rd] respondent, for further action. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 15.12.2017. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan