JOSE DEVASSY MEEKATTUKULAM, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Exts.P4 and P6) within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The court also ordered that until orders are passed on the stay petitions, all recovery proceedings for amounts due under the assessment and penalty orders (Exts.P1 and P2) shall remain suspended. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or penalty orders themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of pending stay applications and recovery actions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Jose Devassy Meekattukulam, is challenging assessment and penalty orders for assessment year 2014-15. He filed appeals against these orders (Ext.P1 and Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent) and also filed stay petitions (Ext.P4 and Ext.P6). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala because recovery proceedings were initiated to recover the amounts due under the assessment and penalty orders while the stay petitions were pending before the 1st respondent. The Income Tax Department was represented by its Standing Counsel.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents are valid pending the disposal of the stay petitions filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should not be initiated while stay petitions are pending before the appellate authority, as it prejudices their right to seek relief. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its Standing Counsel, was heard by the court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment and Ext.P2 order imposing penalty under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal against Ext.P1 order of assessment and Ext.P5 appeal against Ext.P2 order of penalty along with Ext.P4 and P6 stay petitions. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that recovery proceedings have been initiated to recover the amounts due under Exts.P1 and P2 pending disposal of Exts.P4 and P6 stay petitions before the 1st respondent.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department also.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 and P6 stay petitions filed in Exts.P3 and P5 appeals after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on Exts.P4 and P6, any proceedings for recovery of amounts under Exts.P1 and P2 shall remain suspended. GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG
W.P (C) No.26382/2024 -3-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
