High Court of Karnataka · Procedural orders and remands
Sri Jihveshwara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II & Anr.
W.P. No. 38337/2013 ·
Pending appellate stay application directed to be decided within three weeks.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Sri Jihveshwara Credit Cooperative Society sought restraint against recovery while its assessment appeal and stay application were pending before CIT(A)-II. The assessment related to AY 2010-11; the writ referred to recovery under Annexure A dated 23 November 2012.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Court declined to entertain the writ because the society had approached it instead of pursuing the pending stay request before the appellate authority.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The writ was rejected. The society could move CIT(A)-II for consideration of stay, and that authority was directed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within three weeks of receiving a copy of the Court’s order.
4. OUTCOME
The society obtained a deadline for a stay decision, not an express High Court stay of recovery or a ruling on the underlying assessment.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
A decision deadline is different from interim protection
The operative paragraph orders consideration of stay; it does not suspend recovery pending that consideration. The pending application and the Court’s three-week direction should therefore not be described as automatic protection against collection.
Source: PDF pp.2–3
The deadline runs from receipt
The specified trigger is receipt of a copy by the appellate authority, rather than the judgment date alone. Proof of that receipt and a request to take up the existing application are directly relevant to implementing the direction.
Source: PDF p.3
The tax merits remain open
Nothing here decides the society’s entitlement to any cooperative deduction or the correctness of the assessed demand. The practical route identified by the Court is the pending appellate process, with a prompt separate ruling on stay.
Source: PDF p.2
Source and verification
Complete 3-page original reviewed; source bytes verified.
Original PDF: 3 pages · SHA-256: 96daf4fda48a843e15eb90645d69639f6d678d4fd7c277114d782bb81a065c76
Full original and all five panels re-reviewed on 21 October 2026.
Current law and subsequent treatment not independently verified.
Subsequent proceedings and current judicial treatment have not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.
