THUPPILIKAI HAMZA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P8) expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The court also stipulated that if any conditional interim order of stay was proposed, reasons for it must be stated. Furthermore, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the garnishee notices (Exts.P3 to P7) were to stand deferred. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Thuppilikai Hamza, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of his appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P8) expeditiously. The petitioner had filed the appeal against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. During the pendency of the appeal, garnishee notices (Exts.P3 to P7) were issued to various banks (respondents 3 to 7). The petitioner apprehended enforcement of these notices while his appeal and stay petition were pending. The writ petition was filed on 16.08.2023.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the stay petition was pending since 31.07.2023 and there was an apprehension of enforcement of garnishee notices during the pendency of the appeal and stay petition. The revenue (respondents 1 and 2) did not record any specific arguments against this direction, but their counsel appeared before the court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
WP(C) NO. 26493 OF 2023 (ii) If the second respondent proposes to pass any conditional interim order of stay, it shall state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P8 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P3 to P7 shall stand deferred. C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes
WP(C) NO. 26493 OF 2023 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26493/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013 DATED 31.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3OF NOTICE DATED 13.7.2023 SERVED ON THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4OF NOTICE DATED 13.7.2023 SERVED ON THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.7.2023 SERVED ON THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.7.2023 SERVED ON THE 6TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7OF NOTICE DATED 13.7.2023 SERVED ON THE 7TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026