JALALUDEEN SHAHUL HAMEED, vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not comment on the merits of the assessment order. Instead, it directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appellate Authority) to consider and pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's stay application (Exhibit-P5) expeditiously, preferably within two months. For a period of two months from the date of the order, no recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order were to be enforced against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific finding was made on the legality of the assessment order itself, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of the stay application and appeal disposal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Jalaludeen Shahul Hameed, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to provide a link for uploading a stay petition (Exhibit-P5) and to consider and dispose of his appeal (Exhibit-P4) filed before the National Faceless Appellate Authority (2nd respondent). The petitioner is challenging an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (3rd respondent), which disallowed purchases amounting to Rs. 14,06,63,648/- as non-bonafide, leading to a demand of Rs. 7,59,16,442/-. The petitioner contends this demand is illegal. The High Court of Kerala was considering the admission of this writ petition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner should be provided with a link to upload his stay petition (Exhibit-P5) before the appellate authority? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Exhibit-P4) within a stipulated time? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argues that he needs a link to upload his stay petition (Exhibit-P5). - The petitioner contends that the demand of Rs. 7,59,16,442/- is illegal due to the disallowance of purchases. - The petitioner seeks a direction for the appellate authorities to dispose of his appeal expeditiously. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T
The present writ petition has been field for the following reliefs:- “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to provide a link to the petitioner so as to upload Exhibit-P5 stay petition; ii) Till orders are passed on Exhibit-P5, stay further proceedings including coercive proceedings pending disposal of the Writ Petition; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the Appeal a time limit to be fixed by this Honourable Court.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner
WP(C) NO. 31387 OF 2023 3 submits that against the impugned assessment order the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed an application for stay on 24.09.2023 in Ext.P5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that huge demand of Rs.7,59,16,442/- as income tax due is illegal as the 3rd respondent, assessing authority has treated the purchases of Rs.14,06,63,648/- as non bonafide purchases and which has been disallowed.
This Court would not like to comment upon the merit of the assessment order against which the appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. However, it would be suffice to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on the stay application of the petitioner in Ext.P5 expeditiously, preferably within in a period of two months. For a period of two months, no recovery in WP(C) NO. 31387 OF 2023 4 pursuance to the impugned assessment order shall be enforced against the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE rpr
WP(C) NO. 31387 OF 2023 5
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 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 Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026