SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
The Panangad Service Co-Operative Bank Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Union Of India - Respondent
WA 2876 Of 2025, WA 2904 Of 2025, WA 3003 Of 2025, WA 3049 Of 2025, WA 3059 Of 2025, WA 3084 Of 2025, WA 3195 Of 2025, WA 2651 Of 2025, WA 2653 Of 2025, WA 2674, WA 2675 Of 2025, WA 2720 Of 2025, WA 2735 Of 2025, WA 2746 Of 2025, WA 2750 Of 2025, WA 2755 Of 2025, WA 2758 Of 2025, WA 2772 Of 2025, WA 2774 Of 2025, WA 2793 Of 2025, WA 2796 Of 2025, WA 2804 Of 2025, WA 2805 Of 2025, WA 2810 Of 2025, WA 2825 Of 2025, WA 2837 Of 2025, WA 2845 Of 2025, WA 2846 Of 2025, WA 2847 Of 2025, WA 2849 Of 2025, WA 2850 Of 2025, WA 2851 Of 2025, WA 2852 Of 2025, WA 2853 Of 2025, WA 2856 Of 2025, WA 2859 Of 2025, WA 2860 Of 2025, WA 2862 Of 2025, WA 2864 Of 2025, WA 2871 Of 2025, WA 2874 Of 2025, WA 2877 Of 2025, WA 2878 Of 2025, WA 2881 Of 2025, WA 2883 Of 2025, WA 2888 Of 2025, WA 2891 Of 2025, WA 2895 Of 2025, WA 2897 Of 2025, WA 2898 Of 2025, WA 2900 Of 2025, WA 2901 Of 2025, WA 2905 Of 2025, WA 2906 Of 2025, WA 2907 Of 2025, WA 2909 Of 2025, WA 2916 Of 2025, WA 2928 Of 2025, WA 2932 Of 2025, WA 2936 Of 2025, WA 2937 Of 2025, WA 2940 Of 2025, WA 2943 Of 2025, WA 2946 Of 2025, WA 2953 Of 2025, WA 2956 Of 2025, WA 2958 Of 2025, WA 2959 Of 2025, WA 2960 Of 2025, WA 2972 Of 2025, WA 2979 Of 2025, WA 2982 Of 2025, WA 2984 Of 2025, WA 2989 Of 2025, WA 2990 Of 2025, WA 2992 Of 2025, WA 2993 Of 2025, WA 2998 Of 2025, WA 3007 Of 2025, WA 3008 Of 2025, WA 3013 Of 2025, WA 3021 Of 2025, WA 3028 Of 2025, WA 3032 Of 2025, WA 3036 Of 2025, WA 3040 Of 2025, WA 3044 Of 2025, WA 3047 Of 2025, WA 3055 Of 2025, WA 3056 Of 2025, WA 3058 Of 2025, WA 3066 Of 2025, WA 3067 Of 2025, WA 3068 Of 2025, WA 3071 Of 2025, WA 3076 Of 2025, WA 3080 Of 2025, WA 3083 Of 2025, WA 3085 Of 2025, WA 3086 Of 2025, WA 3089 Of 2025, WA 3094 Of 2025, WA 3102 Of 2025, WA 3121 Of 2025, WA 3122 Of 2025, WA 3129 Of 2025, WA 3134 Of 2025, WA 3166 Of 2025, WA 3167 Of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.R.Sudhish
For the Respondent: Christopher Abraham, Addl. SC, Income Tax Department Shri.P.R.Ajith Kumar Bg Harindranath Sr., DSGI Smt. O.M Shalina,SC Sri. Muhammed Rafiq, SPL.GP Smt M. M Jasmine, GP Sri.Jose Joseph, SC Sri.P.C.Sasidharan Sri.A.Kumar (Sr.)

The legislature has the authority to regulate and amend tax exemption thresholds for cooperative entities. Such policy decisions are constitutional unless inherently perverse. Furthermore, parties who strictly comply with interim court orders are protected from retroactive penal consequences upon the final resolution of the legal dispute.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax legislation - Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) - Exemption - Cooperative structures - Amendment introducing financial thresholds for exemption - Constitutional validity - The legislature possesses plenary power to grant, structure, or withdraw tax exemptions; unless a provision is demonstrated to be constitutionally perverse or lacks legislative competence, judicial interference in policy matters is not permitted. (Paras 42-43, 53)

(B) Appeals - Scope of judicial review - Interim orders - Protection of compliance - Where parties have adhered to interim court directives during the pendency of proceedings, it is equitable to prevent the imposition of retrospective penal consequences resulting from the final judgment, as the parties were compelled to act in accordance with judicial injunctions. (Paras 61-66)

Facts of the case:
The matter concerns challenges by various cooperatives regarding mandatory tax deduction requirements on interest payments introduced through legislative amendments. The appellants contended that the new proviso, which restricts previous blanket exemptions based on annual turnover and receipt thresholds, created unreasonable and discriminatory classifications. The appellants further argued that such deductions were unnecessary for institutions already eligible for specific income deductions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the legislative amendment setting specific turnover-based criteria for tax deduction exemptions reflects a valid exercise of policy-making power. The court also clarified that specific financial institutions continue to enjoy exemptions based on administrative circulars, separate from the contested proviso. Furthermore, the court determined that the requirement for societies to act as tax deductors, while involving minor administrative, does not constitute a violation of constitutional law, nor does it override other statutory benefits regarding income assessment.

Issues: The central issues addressed were whether the imposition of turnover-based limitations on tax exemptions for cooperatives is constitutionally valid, and whether the requirement for these entities to act as tax deductors imposes an unconstitutional or arbitrary burden.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that tax policy and the withdrawal of exemptions fall squarely within the legislature's domain. The court further reasoned that compliance with previous interim injunctions by the parties warrants protection from adverse penal consequences, as the judiciary must uphold the integrity of its own orders and ensure that compliance does not lead to unfair prejudice.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. legislative background and origin of the tds proviso dispute under the income tax act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. categorization of appeals and scope of tds exemptions for co-operative societies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. impact of the 2015 explanatory note on the applicability of tds for co-operative banks. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. interaction between section 80p deduction benefits and section 194a tds obligations. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
5. evaluation of constitutional validity regarding legislative classification in tax exemptions. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
6. validation of interim relief compliance and prospective application of judicial orders. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for short), through Section 194A thereof, enjoins that “(1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident, any income by way of interest, other than income by way of interest on securities, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee, or at the time of payment thereof in cash, or by issuing of cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force.”

2. After mandating thus, Section 194A (3) of the “Act” exempts certain categories from the afore obligation.

3. One of the categories so mentioned, are Co operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co operative Societies Act, (“KCS Act” for short); and the exemptions they enjoy are available in Sections 194A (3)(v) and 194A(3)(viia) of the ‘Act’.

4. Since the afore provisions will have to be read in its full, we extract them as under:

Section 194A (3)(v):

“to such income credited or [paid by a co-operative society (other than a co operative bank) to a member thereof or to such income credited or paid by a co operative society] to any other co operative society;

[Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, “co-operative bank” shall have the same meaning assigned to it in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);]

Section 194A (3)(viia):

to such income credited or paid in respect of,—

(a)deposits with a primary agricultural credit society or a primary credit society or a co-operative land mortgage bank or a co-operative land development bank;

(b) deposits (other than time deposits made on or after the 1st day of July, 1995) with a Co-operative Society, other than a co-operative society or bank referred to in sub-clause (a), engaged in carrying on the business of banking;]”

5. The genesis of the controversy in these cases is in the fact that, the Finance Act, 2020, added a proviso to Section 194A (3) to the following effect:

[Provided that a co-operative society referred to in clause (v) or clause (viia) shall be liable to deduct income-tax in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), if-

(a) the total sales, gross receipts or turnover of the co-operative society exceeds fifty crore rupees during the financial year immediately preceding the financial year in which the interest referred to in sub-section (1) is credited or paid; and

(b) the amount of interest, or the aggregate of the amounts of such interest, credited or paid, or is likely to be credited or paid, during the financial year is more than [one lakh] rupees in case of payee being a senior citizen and [fifty thousand] rupees in any other case.]

[Explanation 1.- For the purposes of clauses (i), (vii) and (viia), "time deposits" means deposits ([including] recurring deposits) repayable on the expiry of fixed periods.

[Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "senior citizen" means an individual resident in India who is of the age of sixty years or more at any time during the relevant previous year.]]

6.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top