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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J
Santhosh Kumar Madhavan Nair Thankam – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India Trivandrum – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48727 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.V.N.Gopalakrishnan Nair, Sri.G.Varun
For the Respondents: Smt G.Mini, Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, Shri.Navaneeth.N.Nath

Pending income tax appeal requires petitioner to seek stay from appellate authority; court directs expeditious consideration.

Headnote:Income Tax Act governs assessment and recovery proceedings. Petitioner, an assessee, challenged assessment order for AY 2015-2016 via rectification application (rejected) and pending appeal, after bank account freeze for recovery. Court found appeal pending, directing petitioner to seek stay from appellate authority. Issues framed as need for interim relief amid recovery during appeal. Ratio: Appellate authority must consider stay application expeditiously post-judgment. Writ petition disposed directing consideration of stay application within timelines.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's grievance against tax assessment and recovery freezing bank account. (Para 1)
2. direct petitioner to seek stay from appellate authority with timelines. (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act , and is aggrieved by the Ext.P7 order of assessment pertaining to the assessment year 2015-2016, corresponding to financial year 2014-2015. As against Ext.P6, the petitioner submitted an application for rectification before the Income Tax Officer which was rejected as per Ext.P7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 appeal, which is now pending before the 4th respondent. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances as the bank account of the petitioner maintained with the 1st respondent Bank has been frozen as part of recovery proceedings initiated for realising the amount mentioned as per Exts.P6 and P7. It was in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, I am of the view that, since the petitioner has submitted the appeal, it is for the petitioner to move the appellate authority for appropriate interim orders by submitting an application for stay.

3. Accordingly, it is ordered that, in case the petitioner is submitting an application for stay, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed by the appellate authority, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said application.

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

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