WP(C)/2231/2026 of THE ASSAM CO OP APEX BANK LTD Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. on 28 April 2026

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, 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.

4. 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”).

5. 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 jurisdiction. It is contended that absent interim protection, irreparable prejudice would ensue.

6. 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 and seized of both the appeal and the stay application. In such circumstances, it is urged, the writ petition ought not to be entertained.

7. 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 jurisdiction, 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.

8. No exceptional ground is made out to entertain the writ petition.

9. However, having regard to the urgency projected, it is expected that the ITAT shall take up and decide the stay application expeditiously.

10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant