THE PAPPINIVATTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. R. 309, vs. NATIIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to take up the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that an opportunity of being heard be afforded to the petitioner. Furthermore, all coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 (the assessment order) were to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The principle established is that courts can direct authorities to expedite pending appeals within a reasonable timeframe, ensuring due process.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Pappinivattam Service Co-operative Society Ltd, has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking expeditious disposal of its appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, New Delhi (1st respondent). The appeal pertains to an assessment order (Ext.P1) issued by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary. The respondents include the National Faceless Appeal Centre, the National E-Assessment Centre, and the local Income Tax Officer.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the National Faceless Appeal Centre to expedite the disposal of the petitioner's pending appeal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks an expeditious disposal of its appeal pending before the 1st respondent. No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded in the judgment for the petitioner's request for expedition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard. However, the specific contentions or arguments raised by the revenue are not detailed in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal, which is stated to be pending consideration before the 1st respondent and seeks for an expeditious disposal of the same. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P2 appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner. Till a decision is taken as directed above all coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE AJM/14/5/24
WP(C) NO. 17651 OF 2024 3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17651/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit p1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23. Exhibit P2OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17.04.2022 WITH STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT 2022-23. Exhibit P3OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.04.2024 IN WP(C).NO. 16255 OF 2024 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
