ROSHAN FOOD EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITEDD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to pass orders on the stay application within a period of two months after hearing the petitioner. Until such orders are passed, the recovery pursuant to the impugned order in the appeal shall be deferred. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality of the 20% deposit condition but provided a procedural remedy by expediting the stay order. The operative direction is to defer recovery and expedite the decision on the stay application.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Roshan Food Exports Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against a reassessment order issued under the Income Tax Act. The assessing authority directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed amount to obtain a stay. The petitioner challenged this direction and the pending appeal before the High Court of Kerala through a writ petition. The High Court considered the pending appeal and the stay application before the appellate authority.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing authority's direction to deposit 20% of the disputed amount for granting a stay is legally sustainable, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of stay and recovery under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner is challenging the condition imposed by the assessing authority for granting a stay, implying it is onerous or unjustified. They seek relief from this condition and a favorable decision on their pending appeal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, likely relies on the powers of the assessing authority to impose conditions for stay, as per the Income Tax Act. No specific arguments or precedents were recorded for the revenue in this judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner, as against the reassessment order issued under the Income Tax Act, preferred an appeal. The appeal is pending before the first respondent. It appears that the assessing authority is directing the petitioner to deposit 20% towards granting stay Ext.P5 is the said order. Notwithstanding the above order, the appellate authority shall pass orders on the stay application within a period of two months after hearing the petitioner. Till then, recovery pursuant to the impugned order in the appeal shall be deferred. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE SPR
WP(C).No. 7417 of 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE OBJECTION DATED 13.12.2018 BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE RE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2018 EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE NOTICE DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 274 R/W 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE RE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HAVING AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT NUMBER 416636731040219 EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11.2.2019 BY ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.2.2019 HAVING THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NUMBER 169781810216. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
