M/S. BLUE STONE METALS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider Ext.P3 (stay petition) expeditiously. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 (assessment order) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Blue Stone Metals, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2021-2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent). The petitioner had filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Along with the appeal, a stay petition (Ext.P3) was also filed. The petitioner's grievance was that recovery proceedings were initiated pursuant to the assessment order despite the pending stay petition. The High Court considered the matter on May 23, 2024.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the stay petition expeditiously, given that it is a statutory appeal. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings were being pursued while their stay petition was pending before the appellate authority, causing prejudice. They sought a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay petition or the recovery proceedings. The revenue was represented by their Standing Counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the 1st respondent for the year 2021-2022, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent invoking the provisions under Section 246 A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P3 say petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending the stay petition, steps have been taken to recover the amount covered by Ext.P1. 2. Since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Ext.P3, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be deferred. The writ petition is disposed of. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE al/-.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18372/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST ERESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DTD. 15-06- 2023 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 13-07-2023 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION WITH A COVERING LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 15-05-2024 Exhibit P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 29879/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 20-09-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
