The Assam Co Op Apex Bank LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, The Assam Co Op Apex Bank Ltd., a co-operative bank regulated by the RBI, filed a writ petition challenging recovery notices dated March 17, 2026, and April 6, 2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent No. 4). These notices demanded payment of an outstanding demand of Rs. 4,63,06,10,541/- for the assessment year 2022-23 and threatened coercive recovery. The petitioner also sought to restrain coercive recovery pursuant to an order dated March 15, 2024, passed by the Assessment Unit (respondent No. 3). The petitioner had participated in assessment proceedings, but the assessment order was passed without due appreciation of material on record. The first appeal before the CIT (Appeals) was dismissed, and a further appeal was pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). During the pendency of the appeal, the recovery notices were issued.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy before the ITAT, Guwahati Bench, and had filed a stay application which remained pending. The Tribunal was thus seized of the matter. The Court found no exceptional grounds to entertain the writ petition, stating that invoking writ jurisdiction bypassing an efficacious statutory remedy was not warranted. The plea that the Tribunal was not sitting regularly could not justify interference by the High Court when the matter was sub judice before a competent statutory forum and the Tribunal was stated to be functional. The Court, however, considering the urgency projected by the petitioner, expected the ITAT to take up and decide the stay application expeditiously. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an efficacious statutory remedy in the form of an appeal before the ITAT, including a pending stay application, is available and the Tribunal is seized of the matter? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the writ petition was necessary because the ITAT was not sitting regularly, and without interim protection, irreparable prejudice would ensue. They argued that the demand was disproportionately high (3.3 times net worth) and coercive recovery would imperil the bank's functioning and survival, impacting its depositors, predominantly from economically weaker sections. The petitioner also highlighted that the bank deals exclusively with public funds, substantially locked in statutory reserves and government securities. Revenue's arguments: The respondent Income Tax Department argued, on instructions, that the writ petition was not maintainable. They pointed out that the appellate tribunal was functional and seized of both the appeal and the stay application, and therefore, the writ petition ought not to be entertained.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 29.04.2026 Heard Ms. L. Gope, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. B. N. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department and Ms. M. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the orders dated 17.03.2026 and 06.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby payment of an outstanding demand of Rs. 4,63,06,10,541/- for the assessment year 2022-23 has been directed, coupled with a stipulation for coercive recovery in default. The petitioner also seeks restraint against any coercive recovery pursuant to the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by respondent No. 3. 3. The petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings and furnished all requisite documents. The assessment order, however,
Page No.# 3/4 came to be passed without due appreciation of the material on record, resulting in the aforesaid demand. The first appeal before the CIT (Appeals) stands dismissed. A further appeal is pending. During the pendency thereof, the impugned recovery notices have been issued demanding immediate payment and threatening coercive steps, including attachment of bank accounts.
The petitioner, a co-operative bank with approximately 10 lakh depositors predominantly from economically weaker sections contends that attachment of its accounts would have severe and irreversible consequences for its depositors. It is further urged that the petitioner deals exclusively with public funds, which remain substantially locked in statutory reserves with the Reserve Bank of India and in Government securities towards CRR and SLR requirements. The demand is stated to be approximately 3.3 times the petitioner’s net worth (about Rs. 139 crores), and any coercive recovery would imperil its very functioning and survival, even as the appeal remains pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ITAT”).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although an appeal and a stay application have been filed before the ITAT, the Tribunal is not sitting regularly; hence, recourse to the present writ juri iction. It is contended that absent interim protection, irreparable prejudice would ensue.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submits, on instructions, that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is pointed out that the appellate tribunal is functional
Page No.# 4/4 and seized of both the appeal and the stay application. In such circumstances, it is urged, the writ petition ought not to be entertained.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the petitioner has already invoked the statutory appellate remedy before the ITAT, Guwahati Bench, and has also filed a stay application, which remains pending. The Tribunal is thus in seisin of the matter. In such a situation, invocation of the writ juri iction, bypassing the efficacious statutory remedy, is not warranted. The plea that the Tribunal is not sitting regularly cannot justify interference by this Court in a matter which is sub judice before a competent statutory forum, particularly when the Tribunal is stated to be functional.
No exceptional ground is made out to entertain the writ petition.
However, having regard to the urgency projected, it is expected that the ITAT shall take up and decide the stay application expeditiously.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.